Pages: 1 2

 

2008-03-26 17:45:38
Protecus
Prophet of Certain Certainties
+28|6949
https://www.gesch.med.uni-erlangen.de/gewissen/ausstell/zwill/_bild/23_25.jpg

While it is undeniable that the Nazi's were a source of some of the worst human atrocities every recorded. However, what many people don't realizes is that, in the aftermath of the war, a vast amount of medical information was gleaned from the records kept in the concentration camps.

At the first sign of the word Nazi, people become immediately defensive, place a big NO on their forehead, and that's that. Unfortunately it is not that simple, and the purpose of this debate:

Can we, with good conscience, use the data obtained by the Nazi's through torture and human mutilation?
Or should it all be destroyed, forcing us to essentially reinvent the wheel and possibly limit our chances of curing a future epidemic?

For some perspective

The Nazis did numerous studies into the limits of the human body in sub zero temperatures. They even devised the "Rapid Active Rewarming Technique," in which a frozen/hypothermic patient is immersed in warm water to resuscitate the patient. While it seems a no brainer today, it was an innovative and groundbreaking discovery at the time. It is still in use today, saving people suffering hypothermia and limiting the damage to lost limbs instead of lost life.

Unfortunately, the methods used to obtain the data were...graphic. Prisoners is the Jewish concentration camps were immersed into tanks of ice water for hours at a time, often shivering to death. Doctor Sigmund Rascher, one of the more notorious "doctors" at Auschwits, used about 300 prisoners in experiments recording their shock from the exposure to cold. About eighty to ninety of the subjects died as a result.

Apparently, Rascher's concentration was constantly interrupted when the hypothermia victims shrieked from pain while their extremities froze white.

Needless to say, there are many many more examples, equally appalling yet, in a twisted way, useful.

Should we use the data, which could potentially save hundreds of lives, but at the same time run the risk of endorsing the barbaric act of human testing...

Or denounce and destroy the data?
2008-03-26 17:59:31
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6838|'Murka

The data is agnostic. What is done with the data is what is important.

Using the data is not endorsing the method by which it was attained. In fact, using the data for good would make the suffering of those used to get the info not in vain.

That's not endorsing the method, but throwing away the data that could be used to save lives would be unethical...we could help, but we didn't.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-03-26 18:00:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina
+1 to FEOS...  100% agreed....
2008-03-26 18:06:43
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6874|Chicago, IL

Turquoise wrote:

+1 to FEOS...  100% agreed....
2008-03-26 18:07:36
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7059|949

How is using the data an endorsement of Nazis?

Leni Riefenstahl was one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.  People aren't even aware of her contributions to cinema - but should we think of her as a Nazi propagandist, or as a woman who achieved great sauces in a time when women weren't considered to have the same capabilities as men?  Or both?  Or just put it all in perspective with rational thought?
2008-03-26 18:16:46
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7117|Tampa Bay Florida
Destroy it.....

I disagree kinda with Feos and Turq.  No, using the data would not be endorsing the way we got it, but.... it'd be better imo to forget it. 

Although since we kinda used everything else the Nazis thought up, its not like this is any different.

P.S. The way that data was gathered was so fucking horrible... imo using it is just as bad as endorsing it.  Not technically, but.. indirectly.  If that makes sense.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-03-26 18:18:20)

2008-03-26 18:22:54
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6977|CH/BR - in UK

S.Lythberg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

+1 to FEOS...  100% agreed....
Agreed as well.

I don't think it would be endorsement at all. I think it would be a shame not to use present data that is useful, and can prevent future suffering. I think the well being of people to come prevails over the past.

-konfusion
2008-03-26 18:23:03
chittydog
less busy
+586|7262|Kubra, Damn it!

Spearhead wrote:

Destroy it.....

I disagree kinda with Feos and Turq.  No, using the data would not be endorsing the way we got it, but.... it'd be better imo to forget it. 

Although since we kinda used everything else the Nazis thought up, its not like this is any different.

P.S. The way that data was gathered was so fucking horrible... imo using it is just as bad as endorsing it.  Not technically, but.. indirectly.  If that makes sense.
So what you're saying is to make those people's lives lost in vain, to throw away what little good may have come out of their suffering?
2008-03-26 18:39:32
Protecus
Prophet of Certain Certainties
+28|6949

FEOS wrote:

The data is agnostic. What is done with the data is what is important.

Using the data is not endorsing the method by which it was attained. In fact, using the data for good would make the suffering of those used to get the info not in vain.
I agree, it is not the data that is controversial, but the methods used to procure it.

I don't think the fear is the using the information will endorse Nazis, per se, but that it may justify questionable actions later on. As long as a useful creation is made at the end, any and all actions are permissible.

For instance:
If a cure for cancer could be found, but it would cost the lives of 100 babies, would it be done. The choice is despicable, but it could be justifiable in the end using this "Nazi Defense." (<== My term, not even close to scientific or historic)
2008-03-26 18:44:33
GorillaKing798
Too legit to quit
+48|6541|Tampa, Florida

Spearhead wrote:

Destroy it.....

I disagree kinda with Feos and Turq.  No, using the data would not be endorsing the way we got it, but.... it'd be better imo to forget it. 

Although since we kinda used everything else the Nazis thought up, its not like this is any different.

P.S. The way that data was gathered was so fucking horrible... imo using it is just as bad as endorsing it.  Not technically, but.. indirectly.  If that makes sense.
You're doing some of the same techniques like this on lab animals today, granted, it is a total different species but the information to save hundreds of thousands has a death-toll. Their means of getting this were no doubt grotesque and inhuman to an extreme, but as FEOS said letting their suffering go to waste is much worse than using it to save others.
2008-03-26 19:01:49
topthrill05
Member
+125|7005|Rochester NY USA
Destroying it isn't even logical, its pure stupidity.
2008-03-26 19:06:38
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6557|North Tonawanda, NY
If I were a researcher and I had to cite Nazi data in a paper, I have to admit that it would be a little weird.

FEOS said this in another thread a few months back, and I agree completely. 

FEOS wrote:

I know...it's the "fruit from the forbidden tree" argument. However, if the data is useful it could also be considered unethical NOT to use it. There are a lot of test data that we use now that were obtained via methods we consider to be unethical today. That doesn't keep us from using it, though.
The US has its own skeletons in the closet in this area too...  For a study almost equal in brutality (and probably unparalleled in length), look no further than the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.

Article wrote:

The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male also known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Pelkola Syphilis Study, Public Health Service Syphilis Study or the Tuskegee Experiments was a clinical study, conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, in which 399 (plus 201 control group without syphilis) poor — and mostly illiterate — African American sharecroppers were denied treatment for syphilis.
The research data gained from such experiments should not be destroyed.  That would be lunacy.  Instead, that data should be used, but never intentionally reproduced.
2008-03-26 19:08:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6838|'Murka

Protecus wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The data is agnostic. What is done with the data is what is important.

Using the data is not endorsing the method by which it was attained. In fact, using the data for good would make the suffering of those used to get the info not in vain.
I agree, it is not the data that is controversial, but the methods used to procure it.

I don't think the fear is the using the information will endorse Nazis, per se, but that it may justify questionable actions later on. As long as a useful creation is made at the end, any and all actions are permissible.

For instance:
If a cure for cancer could be found, but it would cost the lives of 100 babies, would it be done. The choice is despicable, but it could be justifiable in the end using this "Nazi Defense." (<== My term, not even close to scientific or historic)
Absolutely true. That is an ethical tightrope that must be walked. But I think that there is little danger of people viewing concentration camp experiments on unwilling participants as justifiable later on. It's not a case of the ends justify the means, but rather the ends have already been attained and will be useful to humankind...do we just throw that out because it is fruit from the forbidden tree?

Your instance is somewhat different in that it presupposed a predisposition to inflicting harm in the name of advancing science. Using data gathered by the Nazis is not an instantiation of a predisposition to inflicting harm, but rather prudent use of data that has already been gathered.

I hope that made sense...

Last edited by FEOS (2008-03-26 19:08:35)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-03-26 19:17:46
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7070

Protecus wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The data is agnostic. What is done with the data is what is important.

Using the data is not endorsing the method by which it was attained. In fact, using the data for good would make the suffering of those used to get the info not in vain.
I agree, it is not the data that is controversial, but the methods used to procure it.

I don't think the fear is the using the information will endorse Nazis, per se, but that it may justify questionable actions later on. As long as a useful creation is made at the end, any and all actions are permissible.

For instance:
If a cure for cancer could be found, but it would cost the lives of 100 babies, would it be done. The choice is despicable, but it could be justifiable in the end using this "Nazi Defense." (<== My term, not even close to scientific or historic)
you familiar with the way most early autopsies were performed.   a lot of the time people were murdered and sold to universities for study because of the freshness of the bodies.
2008-03-26 19:21:53
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6557|North Tonawanda, NY

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you familiar with the way most early autopsies were performed.   a lot of the time people were murdered and sold to universities for study because of the freshness of the bodies.
Or fresh graves were robbed.
2008-03-26 19:22:38
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6751|New Haven, CT
A good analogy to this comes from the "Real Story of the Three Little Pigs", where the wolf, accidentally killing the two pigs, eats them rather then let them go to waste.

While he never would have intentionally killed the pigs for food, he realizes it is dumb to let the pigs waste away after they are already dead, and also that not eating the pigs will do nothing to save them.

Similarly, while we ideally would never engage in the inhumane research the Nazis did, allowing this research to be lost is denying treatment to others, while doing nothing to remedy what happened to the victims, and thus a poor idea.
2008-03-26 19:25:29
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7070

SenorToenails wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you familiar with the way most early autopsies were performed.   a lot of the time people were murdered and sold to universities for study because of the freshness of the bodies.
Or fresh graves were robbed.
either way
2008-03-26 19:28:05
Protecus
Prophet of Certain Certainties
+28|6949

FEOS wrote:

Your instance is somewhat different in that it presupposed a predisposition to inflicting harm in the name of advancing science. Using data gathered by the Nazis is not an instantiation of a predisposition to inflicting harm, but rather prudent use of data that has already been gathered.

I hope that made sense...
uuuuhhhh......

Ok, translation....

My example doesn't really count because it is dependent on the fact that we must to damage to advance science. In the Nazi's case, we are not doing any damage, merely using what we found.
Yea?

However, now it seems like a battle of semantics. A bit of the "I didn't break it, I just found it like that."

While we don't have maleficent motives as we use the data, the Nazi's sure as hell did. While they did torture people for medical research, they also tortured people just to torture them.
2008-03-26 20:10:56
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7193|UK

FEOS wrote:

The data is agnostic. What is done with the data is what is important.

Using the data is not endorsing the method by which it was attained. In fact, using the data for good would make the suffering of those used to get the info not in vain.

That's not endorsing the method, but throwing away the data that could be used to save lives would be unethical...we could help, but we didn't.
exactly right.

The data is neither good nor bad, its whats done with it that counts.
2008-03-26 22:21:51
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7198|PNW

Spearhead wrote:

Destroy it.....

I disagree kinda with Feos and Turq.  No, using the data would not be endorsing the way we got it, but.... it'd be better imo to forget it. 

Although since we kinda used everything else the Nazis thought up, its not like this is any different.

P.S. The way that data was gathered was so fucking horrible... imo using it is just as bad as endorsing it.  Not technically, but.. indirectly.  If that makes sense.
The atomic bomb was tested in the presence of US military personnel. I guess we should chuck that data too.
2008-03-27 00:41:48
GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6800|Kyiv, Ukraine
Destroy it.  You never want to set the precedent that it is acceptable.

It would motivate some whack jobs to do it again -

"They'll use my data, I can ignore the ethics and torture children to death to get new data.  One day the world will thank me even if they condemn me now."

vs.

"We should stick to the laws/ethics, or all my work will be wasted."
2008-03-27 03:12:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6838|'Murka

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Destroy it.  You never want to set the precedent that it is acceptable.

It would motivate some whack jobs to do it again -

"They'll use my data, I can ignore the ethics and torture children to death to get new data.  One day the world will thank me even if they condemn me now."

vs.

"We should stick to the laws/ethics, or all my work will be wasted."
So any beneficial knowledge gained by what modern society deems unacceptable measures should be set aside?

If not, what is the threshold? Cure for cancer? AIDS? STDs? Malaria? Dengue Fever? Ebola?

When do the benefits outweigh our own revulsion?

Many of the ancient medical breakthroughs were based on studies that Western society today would find morally questionable if not downright reprehensible. Do we toss all that aside?

At what point are we being ethnocentric to the detriment of the greater population?

Or are we just intellectually dishonest and obfuscate the source of the data, claiming "clean" studies so that the population feels better about it?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-03-27 04:32:04
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6533|eXtreme to the maX
For once I agree with FEOS, might as well use the information.
But also line up against a wall the people who did it to make sure no-one else is tempted to try that kind of thing.

The argument 'they're going to die/are already dead, might as well try some stuff out' is a very dangerous one.
As is 'its for the greater good'

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-03-27 05:59:53)

Fuck Israel
2008-03-27 05:40:14
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6650|Escea

Wasn't the best way for the data to be created but it is useful today.

It's a bit like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, may not have been the best ethical decision in warfare but had it not happened countless more lives would have been lost and we wouldn't know what effect nuclear weapons would have on people.
2008-03-27 06:00:49
GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6800|Kyiv, Ukraine

FEOS wrote:

So any beneficial knowledge gained by what modern society deems unacceptable measures should be set aside?
Not just set aside, wiped off the face of the Earth.  Rendered unusable.  Whatever.  There is no scientific advance that can't be gotten morally and ethically if given enough time to find the right method.

If not, what is the threshold? Cure for cancer? AIDS? STDs? Malaria? Dengue Fever? Ebola?
To reverse the question, what is the threshold for who we use as test subjects?  Sick children, healthy children, elderly, convicted robbers, convicted rapists, homeless, volunteer military members, POWs, other races, other religions.  Where do you draw the line to who is valuable and who is expendable for this research purpose?  Who will you allow to play God and decide this...who would you trust with this power to decide?  Even if you must balance it against the threats you stated above, how would you make the formula for how many people you would be willing to sacrifice, who would you trust to make this formula?  What if you or someone you loved was picked to make this sacrifice?  Would you send your kid to the gallows with your head held high so that his healthy corpse could be used for the benefit of mankind?

When do the benefits outweigh our own revulsion?
Revulsion is not the question.  Intentional infliction of severe pain and murder is the question.  By most accounts, they are crimes.

Many of the ancient medical breakthroughs were based on studies that Western society today would find morally questionable if not downright reprehensible. Do we toss all that aside?
This is a logical fallacy on its head.  First, I would like to think we've advanced morally and ethically as well as scientifically over the last few millenia.  Second, two wrongs don't make a right.  If we allowed a man to murder someone under stupid circumstances (honor duels, for example) 200 years ago, why is it outlawed today?

At what point are we being ethnocentric to the detriment of the greater population?
Unfortunately, there are many thinkers with a big sway over medical universities that agree with you, its called "bioethics studies".  This is nothing more than the 1800's "eugenics movement" (scientific basis for Nazi genocide) reborn with a friendlier face.

edit:  Your choice of the word "ethnocentric" is a bad one (meaning, "based on our own ethnic superiority"), I responded above to what you meant to say (assumed "adhering to ethical principles"), not what was actually said.

Or are we just intellectually dishonest and obfuscate the source of the data, claiming "clean" studies so that the population feels better about it?
Free societies demand full public disclosure.  Anything less is not liberty.  I suspect very few people know enough about our own American roots to realize this philosophical concept.  If a member the public chooses to ignore the source of the data, it is their right and their problem to be willfully ignorant, but it should always be available for every study made.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2008-03-27 06:01:54)

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard