As we all may know, World War II was a dark time for the world as we experienced one of the most unethical, violent, and depressing eras of our lifetime. During World War II, specifically between the years of 1933 and 1945, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party controlled Germany through a totalitarian state. Hitler’s unexplained hate for Jews lead to tragic aftermath; Jews were sent to concentration camps to die and some were used as human subjects in “medical experiments.” While this whole thing is a whole mess of ethicality, there is an emphasis on the practice and (recent) use of data from these experiments.
Many points are raised as to whether or not it is okay to use data from the Nazi medical experiments during World War II. If some of the data from these experiments could be put into good use and help save some lives TODAY, is it justifiable to use it even though it feels immoral to do so? Even though it is not approved to do so by the US Environmental Protection Agency, this article highlights various viewpoints on the wrongs and rights of using this data.
There a lot of little questions associated with one obvious big question: Is it ethical to use fata from Nazi medical experiment? Even though this data could essentially give good use and help our population in natural emergencies, is it disrespectful for the people used in these experiments or does it justify these experiments?
Regardless of what people think, it is a fact that this data could be helpful to our community. It is probable that people might get offended by releasing such private information (including people’s names) or others might be worried of the message it could give off. Another question raised is, would it be okay to publish this data in secret? That being that it is not actually considered published literature.
This article states that no matter whether it is right or wrong, useful science could come from wrongdoings. Additionally, even if the data was obtained through the unconsented pain and death from others, it is useful science that could help other scientists today.
The article highlights this by comparing it this topic to organ donors who could very well be murder victims. Even though there death might have been unjust, their organs are still useful to other people. Personally, I think this is different because to be an organ donor you have to consent for the process. The victims of these Nazi medical experiments were in no way able to give consent for this data.
Even though this data could be good use to our community, this article assumes that we, as a society, owe something, ethically, to the victims of a wrong act. The article assumes that we owe these victims recognition that what was done to them Is not okay. If we don’t use this data, we are recognizing that, we are not letting these scientist get away with cruelty like experiments.
This article also assumes that people are honest about suing this data. Technically, it is possible that people could go under the table and gain access to this data without published consent. Alternatively, this article says we, as a community, would not do that and that we should be open about the way we obtain data.