Palace Of Justice: The Nuremberg Code

Nuremberg Code After World War II ended, the Allied powers held a tribunal which led to multiple trials against major war criminals, military, and Nazi leadership officials. The Nuremberg code was one of the first trials and became known as The Doctors’ Trial which occurred in 1947 (Jarmusik). Basically twenty-three German Nazi Party physicians conducted cruel and unforgiving experiments on prisoners that were being held captive. These medical experiments were often conducted on Jewish prisoners and often performed in the Auschwitz concentration camps (Jarmusik). In the Palace of Justice, a trial was performed in Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany. The trial was performed here, because it was an undamaged building and was symbolic to the Nazi

Ten ethical principles for human experimentation were derived as a result from The Doctors’ Trials (Jarmusik). Some of these principles included voluntary consent, needs to be based off animal experimentation, and results need to be for the greater or good for society (Jarmusik). Essentially, the goal of establishing the Nuremberg Code from my understanding was to attempt to provide a clear set of rules about human experimentation. After harsh trials were conducted, these rules needed to be established. These ethical guidelines are still considered the forefront of U.S. Law regarding human medical research. They serve as a reminder of the past and are relevant in the

DoH was the preceding ethics document that gave principles regarding human experimentation research. To my understanding, the DoH was a document of ethics that followed along the ethical principles that were formulated from the Nuremberg Code. This was accomplished in 1964 and was able to give the necessary rules for individuals regarding clinical research (Carlson, Boyd, & Webb, 2004). After reviewing what the DoH entails, I learned that the basic principal discussed was respect towards the individual in regards to making decisions. Medical decisions can be very difficult to reach a consensus on. In the event that a person is a minor, consent needs to be given by the individual or somebody who would consider the individual’s best interest. In the course of action, it was determined that although research is necessary, a person’s interests and ethical factors must be accounted for when conducting research (Carlson, Boyd, & Webb, 2004). Being able to recognize whether a person can physically, mentally, or legally give consent should be reflected in order to take a person’s interest into consideration (Carlson, Boyd, & Webb,