If Nazis found a cure for Hiv by torturing Jews (in the distant past), would it be wrong to use their research or cure?

[Nelka]

It would be wrong, however the USA created this disease after the war.

There are cures or stuff that the Nazis found out about hypothermia that doctors won’t use today because of them.

 

[JRKH]

I can only sit here and think about my lady in the other room, virtually bed ridden - her brain destroyed by Alzheimer’s…I can only think about my Dad - a veteran who had seen some of the horrors of WW II Europe - who died of this same terrible disease.
I can only sit here and think…If someone had come and said…We have a treatment for this that will restore your loved one to full vigor and cognitive ability…I KNOW that I would not ask where or how they came by the cure…such a question would not even cross my mind.

Would those suffering from HIV feel any different??

I don’t know if this contributes in any meaningful way to the “intellectual discussion” taking place here, but perhaps it is good to have a “face” to go with the discussion.

Also - it should be remembered that - it would not be a matter of whether the cure should be produced or not. It WOULD be produced by someone. The only question would be whether you, as a victim or a caregiver, would choose to take the treatment if it is offered to you…based on a) where it came from and b) what it can do for you now.

Peace
James

 

[gleetha]

Did you get a flu shot this year? Several hundred animals died in order to get that to you!
If good comes out of evil, that does not make the good evil.

 

[rossum]

I think that the answers is obvious. It is not wrong to use the cure.

I am just curious to know if anybody thinks otherwise.

I watched a program looking at this issue. The main argument used against using the cure was that it offended the dignity of the victims and therefore the recovered research should be destroyed.

Some of the Nazi research, for example into death by hypothermia, is potentially useful. The dilemma you pose is very real.

There is a good treatment of the issues from a Jewish point of view at The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments.

rossum

 

[JRKH]

Very good read!! Thanks for posting it. I’m including a highlight…

I don’t think that I can concur with the conclusion of the highlight you included…

The Nazi doctors used horrifying practices to conduct their experiments, and most people feel a sense of unease about using the data in contemporary scientific studies.

The sense of unease is a good one…

The natural distaste for the data is an important part of making competent ethical decisions in the natural law framework, and no one should ignore that instinctual feeling.

Nor should they give it excessive weight for this too can lead to an erroneous decision
However, instinctual feelings are not the only means of making ethical decisions.

Divine command theory relies on God to guide ethical decision making (Wilkens, 1992). Although the Bible does not specifically address the question of whether or not to use the Nazi data, many Biblical principles can assist in the decision making process. Based on divine command theory, the Nazi research data should be discarded to serve as a reminder of the depravity of humanity.

This is where I begin to have trouble.

The Nazi research data comes from unspeakably evil actions, and the Bible clearly warns Christians to not be associated with evil. Romans 12:9 states: “Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.” Christians should completely reject that which is evil, and only accept the good. Furthermore, 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 says, “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” Christians should choose to distance themselves from evil, including choosing not to benefit from the data produced by the horrors of the Holocaust.

I agree with Scripture here, but disagree with the interpretation being placed upon it. How far do you want to take this?

Scientists cannot separate the raw data from the way in which the Nazi doctors produced it, therefore, to avoid associating with evil, scientists should not reference the data. Sadly, using the data, even with good intentions, may encourage similar experiments in the future because it affirms the validity of the experiments, and provides tacit support for what was done.

How far do you want to take this?
Suppose a scientist reads the data and says, “I won’t use this data but will see if I can replicate the results in a morally correct manner.” He does this and publishes the results. Do these results (arrived at independently and in a morally acceptable manner) remain tainted and unusable because of the original source?

Other scientists then use these replicated results (which are really just copies of the earlier results) to develop the cure. Are the cures, the benefits, arrived at through the morally acceptable research of our scientist above, likewise tainted?

How far removed from the tainted source does something need to be before it is considered acceptable?

I fully agree with separating good from evil…I disagree with tossing out the good once the evil is exposed and dealt with.

The world must make a clear choice to separate humanity from the horrors of the Holocaust because humans are depraved and could potentially repeat the evils. If science blurs the line of ethics by using the data, the horrors might be repeated.

The horrors have been repeated and will be repeated…maybe not in "medical experiments per-se, but in many other ways…
Humanity wishes to “separate itself” from the Holocaust - but seems to have no problem at all embracing all of the things that made the holocaust possible in the first place…The hatred continues, the butchery continues, the “tribal” (national/religious) jingoism continues…And Jesus weeps all the more…

I say - reject ALL of the evil - but give succor and meaning and importance to those who died…If some cure comes out of the data…then use it…and name it for the victims if known or give them some generic Hebrew/Jewish name…Perhaps some OT healer or prophet…

:twocents: duly deposited

Peace
James

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think the method of producing fertilizer for our food (Harber Process) was developed with funding from the Nazis.

 

[Timothysis]

It was Nazi scientists who put an American on the moon.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Good night Meltz…

BTW…I think this scenario is more akin to ‘Embryonic stem cell research’ than to a child concieved by rape as a previous poster suggested.

The difference is that we’re using the bodies, or pieces of the bodies, of the dead babies for the cure. We’re not killing people and then using medical information obtained from killing them, we’re killing people and then using their dismembered corpses as cures. Big difference.

Analogy 1: If treatments with embryonic stem cells failed, but the research using the stem cells led to important conclusions about the regeneration of tissue, it would be fine to use that information.

But if the treatments with the embryonic stem cells led us to realize that using embryonic stem cells works on certain diseases where other treatments fail it would NOT be okay to use the “remaining” stem cells for treatment because of:

Analogy 2: If important scientific discoveries were made by torturing Jews, it would be okay to use that information later, as specified in the original post by ReapReason.

But if we learned that those important scientific discoveries involved ripping off the heads of dead Jews to cure diseases (how this can be possible is irrelevant) that does NOT make it okay to go into cemeteries and rip heads off of bodies. It involves a second sin of desecrating the already dead. Like using embryonic stem cells.

Child birth due to rape seems to me to still be the better analogy.

 

[JRKH]

It was Nazi scientists who put an American on the moon.

In this we need to be careful to distinguish between “German” and “Nazi”.
Some may have actually been “Nazi” in their outlook - others may have simply carried the necessary “memberships” they needed for their work.
Don’t forget that some have made accusation of “Nazi” connections about the Holy Father simply because he was a “member” of the Hitler youth…a requirement at the time…

And as for just who put Americans on the moon…That was done by Americans…A whole LOT of Americans in many industries, companies and jobs. Even the majority of “scientists” were American born.

Just sayin…

Peace
James

 

[meltzerboy]

I can only sit here and think about my lady in the other room, virtually bed ridden - her brain destroyed by Alzheimer’s…I can only think about my Dad - a veteran who had seen some of the horrors of WW II Europe - who died of this same terrible disease.
I can only sit here and think…If someone had come and said…We have a treatment for this that will restore your loved one to full vigor and cognitive ability…I KNOW that I would not ask where or how they came by the cure…such a question would not even cross my mind.

Would those suffering from HIV feel any different??

I don’t know if this contributes in any meaningful way to the “intellectual discussion” taking place here, but perhaps it is good to have a “face” to go with the discussion.

Also - it should be remembered that - it would not be a matter of whether the cure should be produced or not. It WOULD be produced by someone. The only question would be whether you, as a victim or a caregiver, would choose to take the treatment if it is offered to you…based on a) where it came from and b) what it can do for you now.

Peace
James

What is your view of using those embryonic stem cells which would otherwise be discarded, if there were a good possibility they might cure a person who is suffering from a disease? I know their use is against Church teaching, but do you think it relates to the present discussion in any way? This is an honest question, not meant to be confrontational.

 

[meltzerboy]

I think it all depends on what you mean by “credited”.

The classic Christian example is to look at the Crucifixion of Christ: we believe the greatest good that humanity could ever hope to have came out of the torturing and murdering of an innocent Man.

That torturing and murdering was a direct result of Judas’s betrayal. But rather than say that the good results are credited to Judas, we say that they are credited to Jesus.

Likewise, whatever good could possibly come out of Nazi research, whether they were trying to accomplish it or not, would be credited to the victims and not the murderers. Not in the sense that they (the victims) tried to bring them about, any more than Jesus nailed Himself to the cross, but in the sense that it was their sacrifice that brought it about.

That the Nazis put lots of time and effort, even used skills that could otherwise have been used to do good things, into causing this sacrifice to occur gives them no more credit than the roman soldiers who, using skills that could otherwise been put to good use, hammered the nails through Jesus’ hands and feet are credited with His sacrifice.

I think the idea of bringing good out of evil is exactly the right way to approach this. Not to pretend that the evil was anything less than evil, and not to pretend that any good effects could somehow justify what was done, but rather to try to take those undeniably terrible things that have been done as done and to continue on trying to do the most good with whatever is left.

I like this answer (so far). Thank you.

 

[edwest2]

My area of specialty is investigating all Nazi science and technology developed during the war. All of it was secret and unknown to the average German person at the time. They used compartmentalized systems, just as we did, during the war. Only those who had a need to know could view the research. Unfortunately, much of what was discovered by using human subjects in concentration camps was put to use. It is sad but true. In the case of the German Air Force, they wanted to know the effects of drinking seawater, how long a person could survive in freezing water, and other problems related to helping their own airmen survive at high altitudes, in freezing water and other conditions.

For those who think American scientists and engineers put a man on the moon, that is completely false. In fact, the use of Nazi scientists in the United States who were party members was outlawed by the President right after the war. The military, and certain groups like the Office of Strategic Services, later, the Central Intelligence Group and then then the CIA, saw it differently. Under Project Paperclip, those who were Nazis had their records "sanitized’ to allow them entry. The project was to end in 1947. It did not. It continued until 1973 under different names, including Project National Interest (1948), and later, under the project name “63.”

In 1950, a two volume book set titled German Aviation Medicine was published under the auspices of the Surgeon General of the US Air Force. Among its contributors/editors is one of those concentration camp doctors. I have both volumes.

In Japan, Unit 731 was conducting experiments on human beings regarding various biological weapons. The data was very valuable:

“1946 – U.S. coverup of secret deal with Ishii and Unit 731 leaders – germ warfare data based on human experimentation in exchange for immunity from war-crimes prosecution – begins in earnest. Deal is concluded two years later.”

There’s more:

press.princeton.edu/titles/6573.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Timothysis]

In this we need to be careful to distinguish between “German” and “Nazi”.
Some may have actually been “Nazi” in their outlook - others may have simply carried the necessary “memberships” they needed for their work.
Don’t forget that some have made accusation of “Nazi” connections about the Holy Father simply because he was a “member” of the Hitler youth…a requirement at the time…

And as for just who put Americans on the moon…That was done by Americans…A whole LOT of Americans in many industries, companies and jobs. Even the majority of “scientists” were American born.

Just sayin…

Peace

James

"As for his attitude toward the National Socialist regime in the late 1930s and early 1940s, there can be little doubt that he was a loyal, perhaps mildly enthusiastic subject of Hitler’s dictatorship. With the Führer going from success to success – eliminating unemployment, tearing up the Versailles Treaty, rearming, reoccupying the Rhineland, and then in 1938 absorbing Austria and the Czech Sudetenland without war – there is no doubt that the regime, but above all Hitler, had become immensely popular. Von Braun, a German nationalist immersed in a military environment, doubtlessly found much he could like about these accomplishments, and little reason to be disturbed, especially in view of how much money had been poured into his beloved rocketry as a result of rearmament. He admitted in a 1952 memoir article that he “fared relatively rather well under totalitarialism.”

Just sayin’

 

[JRKH]

What is your view of using those embryonic stem cells which would otherwise be discarded, if there were a good possibility they might cure a person who is suffering from a disease? I know their use is against Church teaching, but do you think it relates to the present discussion in any way? This is an honest question, not meant to be confrontational.

It is a difficult question but I’'ll begin my comments by simply saying that since the Church has already ruled on the matter - that stem cells from aborted fetuses should not be used the matter is closed.

It is my understanding that there are other sources for stem cells that can be used and so that adds another dimension to the discussion - is “stem cell research” really harmed by not using stem cells from aborted fetuses.
Frankly I know nothing about the matter so don’t feel qualified to comment.

If and when cures are found by using stem cells (from whatever source) I am sure that the Church will comment on the matter and this will help to guide us in our decision making…

But in all honesty - If they came out tomorrow with a treatment that would restore my lady to health - even if the Church forbade it…I would probably go ahead anyway. I would commit the sin for the sake of my wife…It’s probably selfish, and might cost me my soul…but - all I could do is to commit myself to the mercy and the Justice of God to do with me as he will.

One other note…
The difference between "stem cell research and the issue presented in the OP is that the OP’s proposal is a “done deal”, something from history. The matter of “stem cell research” is a “present” matter - the Church is seeking to prevent something immoral. These are quite different things.

Peace
James

 

[Marc_Anthony]

One other note…
The difference between "stem cell research and the issue presented in the OP is that the OP’s proposal is a “done deal”, something from history. The matter of “stem cell research” is a “present” matter - the Church is seeking to prevent something immoral. These are quite different things.

Peace
James

I think the big difference is that using information to cure a disease is not intrinsically evil. Using the body parts taken involuntarily from corpses to cure a disease IS intrinsically evil.

 

[JRKH]

"As for his attitude toward the National Socialist regime in the late 1930s and early 1940s, there can be little doubt that he was a loyal, perhaps mildly enthusiastic subject of Hitler’s dictatorship. With the Führer going from success to success – eliminating unemployment, tearing up the Versailles Treaty, rearming, reoccupying the Rhineland, and then in 1938 absorbing Austria and the Czech Sudetenland without war – there is no doubt that the regime, but above all Hitler, had become immensely popular. Von Braun, a German nationalist immersed in a military environment, doubtlessly found much he could like about these accomplishments, and little reason to be disturbed, especially in view of how much money had been poured into his beloved rocketry as a result of rearmament. He admitted in a 1952 memoir article that he “fared relatively rather well under totalitarialism.”

Just sayin’

And this describes one man…
out of how many “scientists” involved in the Space program??

Remember Tim, you said: “It was Nazi scientists (plural) who put an American on the moon.”

I make no case for or against any individual but the Project to land a man on the moon was so immense and involved so many people that I think it unfair to make it sound like an accomplishment of “Nazi” research or technology…
In fact, I wonder just how much of the ideas, the process, the systems, and so forth were even proposed by Germans during the Nazi regime (1933-1945).
And can we count things that were developed AFTER 1945 as being somehow the product of “Nazism” and therefore tainted?

Starts to get tricky here…

Peace
James

 

[meltzerboy]

Some of the Nazi research, for example into death by hypothermia, is potentially useful. The dilemma you pose is very real.

There is a good treatment of the issues from a Jewish point of view at The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments.

rossum

A wonderful and painful piece to read, rossum. Thank you for sharing this.

 

[JRKH]

I must say that I struggle with these matters - mainly because I am easily confused by 'intricacy" and, as beautiful and wonderful as The Church is, she can be quite intricate…:hypno:…

Anyway - there was another thread just recently that discussed the “sinfulness” of “stealing” a loaf of bread to feed your starving family. Located HERE
Apparently - as expressed in the very second post there - this is not stealing at all due to the principle of the “Universal destination of goods” and explained in the Catechism under the section on the seventh commandment.

So - now I am confused a bit more…
If the cure (bread) exists - regardless of how it was arrived at…and this cure is the only option for the terminally ill (starving) person. Does the person sin by accepting the cure?
Is the cure, once developed, now a “good” (product) no different than the bread and thus to be destined to all?

I do not in any way intend to say that unethical research methods should be promoted or (wherever the Church’s influence reaches) allowed - but the question still remains…when, if ever, does the product (the bread or the cure) become separate from the manner in which is was produced?

I don’t know…

Peace
James

 

[Timothysis]

And this describes one man…
out of how many “scientists” involved in the Space program??

Remember Tim, you said: “It was Nazi scientists (plural) who put an American on the moon.”

This "one man’ was Werner Von Braun, THE man responsible. It was his genius that put the Saturn V rockets into space.

 

[Farsight001]

I think that the answers is obvious. It is not wrong to use the cure.

I am just curious to know if anybody thinks otherwise.

I watched a program looking at this issue. The main argument used against using the cure was that it offended the dignity of the victims and therefore the recovered research should be destroyed.

I can tell you that at least the field of psychology in fact uses some of the research he commissioned today. It was wrong to do such atrocities to innocent people, but if the research is there, why let it go to waste?