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?

Thomas N. Tiedt, PhD
Longboat Key, Fla

JAMA. 1997;277(9):712-713.

	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.

—As Dr Grodin and Mr Annas¹ mention, another area wherein the Nuremberg Code is not merely World War II history is the especially difficult situation in which the informed consent mandate is waived by government agencies for active-duty soldiers because of presumed battlefield exigencies—as was the case when Gulf War troops were ordered to take pyridostigmine for an experimental purpose. This waiver and the process by which it was accomplished compel serious examination.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) informed consent waiver was based on production of safety and efficacy data for pyridostigmine as a protective agent against nerve gas attack. Several animal studies have documented the dangers of pyridostigmine and its futility to protect against nerve gas exposure.² In addition, FDA's Investigational New Drug (IND) approval required coadministration of atropine, the actual protectant against nerve gas lethality. In fact, however, atropine was not administered. The US Department . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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