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

[djames99]

The cure has inherent good. The “accident good” thus produced is it’s own species. Regardless, the actions to produce the evil end will be brought to bear in it’s full capacity. However, the accident good that presented itself will not mitigate the subject’s circumstance because of the evil end intended, nor do they derive any credit from it. The good may cause them to feel a positive force to experiment further. In reality, becomes a net of enticement to more evil. All along it was God that chose this time to present it to man.

Consider also that the cure could have been destined at a later date or at God’s choosing, perhaps during circumstances of good intent, perhaps not.

From Summa: Question 18, 1-11

newadvent.org/summa/2018.htm#article3

Article 4. Whether a human action is good or evil from its end?

… Hence in the Divine Persons, Whose goodness does not depend on another, the measure of goodness is not taken from the end. Whereas human actions, and other things, the goodness of which depends on something else, have a measure of goodness from the end on which they depend, besides that goodness which is in them absolutely.

 

[JRKH]

Should data gathered from the victims of the atomic bombs be considered in the same classification as the data gathered by the Nazi’s from Jewish prisoners??

More or less random thoughts…

No it should not be used:

• The bombs were highly experimental and their effects - both short term and long term, were virtually unknown
• The victims were, for the most part, civilians and definitely NOT volunteers.
• The use of these experimental weapons on a predominantly civilian population was not justified without further understanding their potential and effects…Therefore the date from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is tainted in the same way as the Nazi data.

Yes it should be used.

• The Bombs were dropped in a legitimate manner in accordance with the way that both sides were conducting the war. (little regard for civilian deaths and injury)
• Aside from the “experimental data” obtained by the use of the bombs, many Thousands of lives, both Allied and Japanese, were spared by shortening the war and preventing the need for invasion.
• The data obtained was not the purpose for dropping the bombs - ending the war was. The data gathered was a secondary effect of the primary purpose. Therefore the data may be used.

So - what say you…all…Same or different?

Peace
James

 

[504Katrin]

I can understand the argument against using the cure since it was found by means of torturing people. However, I would have to agree with you that it is not wrong to use the cure, and even go one step further in saying that using the cure can serve as a testimonial to the lives of the victims by means of bringing good out of evil. I’m fairly sure this would be in accord with Jewish teaching.

I think I’m going to cry in a minute. I knew you would say that. And I, too, believe that it’s in accord with Jewish teaching. How could anyone not love Jews?

 

[jimmy]

Why would we ignore knowledge that we possess? Why pretend it doesn’t exist? It is wrong to torture someone in the name of science, but if the torture is a relic of the past then why ignore the cure? The assumption is that if the cure was obtained in an ethical way it would be ethical to take the cure. That said, any evil that was done is an element of the past and can’t be changed. The cure itself isn’t evil. So there is no reason to avoid it.

I would gaurantee that if you understood the history of medicine and the history of technology, you would find many cases where someone did something evil to obtain knowledge for the product. And I would gaurantee that some of the things you own are the result of htat knowledge.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The “research” should never have been done. But it was done. And from the survivors as well as medical professionals the majority consensus is "if some good can be done from these obscene crimes, lets do that good. We must NEVER do this again (though medical expirimentation in the USA has included things like the Tuskeegee syphyllis studies, Kinsey’s use of pedophile testimony, etc…) but what has been done can save lives and should be used.

Example1: innumerable people, including aviators, sailors, and fisherman, have been saved from killing hypothermia because Nazi doctor’s dunked victims into icy salt water tanks to determine the best means of saving Luftwaffe crews from ditching into the icy North Sea. We still use counter-immersion into warm water as the treatment for severe hypothermia

Example 2: My wife still has the use of her pectoral minors after her radical masectomies in 1979–because her South African surgeon had read the studies of Nazi doctors who had done unessesary masectomies on victims to determine the least invasive necessary procedure on “aryan” women who DID have cancer.

 

[Catholic80]

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.

This is tricky. If we used their research, what would stop us from someone else wanting to do something similar in the future? By destroying their results, it’s a very clear way of saying, "This research should never have happened. No matter how many “cures” were discovered, these cures should never have existed. It also is a lack of trust in the divine providence of God. The devil can offer us a lot of appealing things - even “cures” for ailments. But would you accept an earthly “cure” for something from the devil, or rather suffer for the sake of the Kingdom of God?

Of course, no one wants to see their loved ones suffer. And it sure would be tempting to use a “cure,” even if it had been discovered through evil methods. But it is not just, nor is it moral. If we justify taking the findings from the Nazi experiments, we can justify just about anything… embryonic stem cell research, testing on people in prison, cloning, … …what’s the matter with using an embryonic cell?.. they are just sitting their frozen anyway… and the list continues…

It’s different than the “necessary sin of Adam.” God can take any evil and make it even better. But Christ’s redemption of the fall of man is not the same as the “cures” that may have come about by the Nazi experiments. This is not a “good” coming from an evil. This is an evil cure coming from an evil. Remember - Christ alone redeems… we cannot redeem ourselves. Using “goods” from an evil is not true good because it doesn’t come from God.

For example, if a person is poor, and they go out and rob a bank to get money to help their starving family, is it right for the family to keep the money? The family needs the money and will suffer without it. The money will help them with many problems. Does the ends justify the means? Of course not! That money is stolen money… and those Nazi “cures” are stolen “cures.” We cannot use the results of evil means to justify a present good.

God gives us good in His way… not on our terms. I’m sure with embryonic research we could find a lot of “good” things, but it is not justifiable to use any of it. By doing so, you support the means.

I understand that it would be extremely tempting to use the research, especially if a loved one was ill… I would be very, very tempted. But emotions cannot cloud our reasoning.