This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Hans-Martin Sass, PhD
Zentrum für Medizinische Ethik Ruhr Universität Bochum, Germany

JAMA. 1997;277(9):709.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—In his article on the Nuremberg Code, Dr Katz¹ argues that the prosecution of Nazi physicians in the Nuremberg military trials was burdened by the "absence of preexisting and widely recognized written rules for human experimentation" and that "medical codes of ethics existent at the time of the Nazi atrocities did not address consent and other safeguards for human subjects." The Nazi physicians not only committed crimes against humanity, but also violated existing German laws.² The Reich Regulation Concerning New Therapy and Human Experimentation³ required that "new therapy may only be applied if consent or proxy consent has been given in a clear and undebatable manner following earlier appropriate information" and made the chief physician of a medical institution personally responsible that "principles of medical ethics and the rules of the medical arts and sciences, both in its design and in its realization," be . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?