Scientific data from concentration camps. Use and ethics?

[sanctus]

After reading the post "science good or bad". I started thinking about this.

 

Not many people dare saying it, but did you ever think of the progress our medicine made thanks the KZ in world war 2? There was. There is a big controversy if using the data from these experiments is ethically acceptable or not, see for example

http://www.stanford.edu/group/STS/techne4.shtml.

 

 

I didn't really make my mind up on this subject yet, but once put aside the shock reading of which and how the experiments were performed (see http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/deathcamps.html), I would say it would be not ethic if we wouldn't use the data, because that would mean that they died and suffered for nothing, just to be eliminated. If we use the data, they would have died at least for having made it possible to save lives in future. I don't want to say that these justifies such experiments on people (I've been visiting Dachau and I believe there is nothing that justifies something like that), I just ask what you think we should do with this data (or what should we have done)?

 

 

Just to be clear (in case my english wasn't clear), if I have to place myself politically I'm clearly to the left and have no neo-nazi ideas.

[Freethinker]

It would seem to be similar in medical ethics to organ transplants. While it would obviously by completely unethical to intentionally kill one person to harvest a heart for another person, if the first person dies for some competely unrelated reason, it would be unethical to not use the heart to save another life. In fact possibly the most benefitial thing that can be derived out of human tragedy is the improvement of another human life, or lives in general.

 

Another example is 9/11. As planes were grounded for days afterwards, a variety of experiments were possible that could not have been done otherwise. e.g. the effect of contrails.

[GAHD]

"...completely unethical to intentionally kill one person to harvest a heart for another person.." - I agree, but this point brings up a few other problems; Would a doctor stop trying to revive(IE they have flat-lined) a person because their heart is needed a few doors over? Does this occur now? Another problem would occur if stem cell and cloning reserch makes more headway; If I have a clone of myself made so I can hijack their body(or simply most of it) to extend my life, would I and the doctors involved have acted unetically? What if I have a thousand clones made to start an "organ farm"? How about using those clones for reserch like that which occured in (Nazi)concentration camps? A female clone to act as a birthing factory or egg farm?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

A female clone to act as a birthing factory or egg farm?

 

WOW, probably more fun than my inflatable girlfriend!

[Freethinker]

OPs... er...

 

Originally posted by: GAHD

Would a doctor stop trying to revive(IE they have flat-lined) a person because their heart is needed a few doors over? Does this occur now?

Is it better to let the other person down the hall die? At what point does one outway the other? Do they ever? Should we stop any transplants? Blood transfusions?

 

another problem would occur if stem cell and cloning reserch makes more headway; If I have a clone of myself made so I can hijack their body(or simply most of it) to extend my life, would I and the doctors involved have acted unetically? What if I have a thousand clones made to start an "organ farm"? How about using those clones for reserch like that which occured in (Nazi)concentration camps? A female clone to act as a birthing factory or egg farm?

 

Where do you draw the line to "personhood"? There is little doubt that the first "person", the original, naturally procreated (including aided furtility) person is a "person". But are the clones "persons"?

[sanctus]

freethinker:

But are the clones "persons"?

 

As you know for the moment the perfect clone is impossible, at least in the way that the clone would think exactly the same way as you. All we can do (or imagine that it will be possible in the near future) is to clone somebody so that the two people have the same DNA. The environment and the experiences lived by the clone and the original will never influence them the same/don't have to be the same at all. Therefore, even if they start of the same basis, they will develop a proper way of thinking, that means a proper personality. If remeber well the etimologique root of "person" is something that has to do with mask behind which the real man/woman hides. So, with this in mind, I would say, the clones are definetely a person.

The discussion could be are they humans? At this stage it depends if the way of reproduction of mankind defines humans or not. One could argue that a clone isn't the (direct) fruit of a fecondation and therefore nnot a human; somebody else could argue that the clone reproducts himself like mankind and therefore is human. If we define humans by their DNA, then it's obvious that a clone is human, that is the approach I prefer.

 

Freethinker (or anybody else), you wrote "effect of contrails" in your first reply, I looked up in a dictionnary (I'm swiss) but didn't understand the translation.Could you explain me what it is?

 

 

To GAHD, if the doctors would have used your clone to extend your life then from my point of view he would have acted unethically. Because, with what I wrote above in mind, I see a clone as a human person and therefore the would have used the clone as a living being of less value that can be used to extend life of the first class individuals: the originals. That's is not the same ethical question as to use data from nazi-camps, because in the first case you would make suffer somebdy in the purpose for extending your life, that would be equivalent to make other nazi-camps to get the opportunity of making new experiments on humans. In words of clones my question was: you've got a cruelly murdered clone (a murder for which you are not all responsible) can you use it or not?

 

I would again say yes, what's the use of a dead body?If that body is used to save other lifes, then he is very useful, else it is worthless. That is the reason for which I'm member of Swisstransplant, that means I carry a card on me in which is said that if I die I agree to donate all my organs.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus

Freethinker (or anybody else), you wrote "effect of contrails" in your first reply, I looked up in a dictionnary (I'm swiss) but didn't understand the translation.Could you explain me what it is?

"The condensation trail left behind jet aircrafts are called contrails."

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html

I mention it in context of the topic as research was done during the time immediately after 9/11 in the US when air traffic was grounded for an extended period of time (Except for the private plane that Bush arranged to allow the Bin Laden family and friends to leave the US before they could be held for questioning). It was a unique opportunity to find out how contrails effect the climate. Turns out that every day after planes stopped flying in the US airspace saw an increase in temp VARIATION increased by 1.1 degrees. It is now considered that contrails may not affect the MEAN temp, but affects the daily variation/ extremes of temp.

 

9/11 study: Air traffic affects climate

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus

If we define humans by their DNA, then it's obvious that a clone is human, that is the approach I prefer.

But if we define "humans" by their DNA, right now that refers to a "unique" DNA for each human. Can we use the same def if we we have NON-unique DNA?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus

 

To GAHD, if the doctors would have used your clone to extend your life then from my point of view he would have acted unethically.

What if it had merely been to "harvest" a kidney? This would not typically be fatal to the donor.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus

I would again say yes, what's the use of a dead body?If that body is used to save other lifes, then he is very useful, else it is worthless. That is the reason for which I'm member of Swisstransplant, that means I carry a card on me in which is said that if I die I agree to donate all my organs.

 

I also carry an "Organ Donor Sticker" on my Drivers License to identify me as a soource.

 

I see two issues here. One as you suggest is, what other value is a dead body? To some, there is some metaphysical value to maintaining completeness to their "container". Even vivisection (autopsy) is seen as immoral, harmful to the individual for some duality issue.

 

the other issue is based on how the potential donor became dead. Such as being the subject of some attrocity such as the Holocaust, or a traffic accident. What if the donor BODY is not dead, just brain dead? Or if "dying", and the Dr "rushes things along" to provide a more viable organ source?

[Freethinker]

On the stem cell/ Cloning issue, it would seem the concept of creating a complete clone as a potential "source" of organs is not even being considered. Nor would it seem to be an efficient viable process for future development. It is highly inefficient. The clone body would have to be maintained in good working order for the lifetime of the source human. It would seem any techniques applied to maintain the donor organs would be more directly applicable to the original human. What good is a 100 year old donor heart to replace a heart that is worn out because it is 100 years old?

 

Stem Cell research is directed towards being able to utilize the stem cells to grow specific organs or be used to inject neutral cells which configure themselves into what ever type cell is needed as needed. This is far more efficient than maintaining an entire 2nd body. Therefore far more economically viable and desirable.

[Freethinker]

Then there is the other side of the coin.

 

The historical and ongoing effort to hinder or even outright stop scientific research which can benefit humanity. Is this immoral, unethical? Is interference with medical advancement unethical? More or less unethical than usage of knowledge gained from immoral situations?

[GAHD]

I wasn't referring to 'keeping' a clone, more to growing one sans-Ceribrilcortex and doing a full brain transplant.

Ex: I'm 60ish, organs beginning to fail. I suply genetic information which is used to create a clone, which is grown in-vitro and kept from gaining Identity(trough early surgury or chemical treatment to the body in question). THe body upon reaching appropriate size is then prepped, and the transplant performed.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

 

I also carry an "Organ Donor Sticker" on my Drivers License to identify me as a soource.

 

 

 

I see two issues here. One as you suggest is, what other value is a dead body? To some, there is some metaphysical value to maintaining completeness to their "container". Even vivisection (autopsy) is seen as immoral, harmful to the individual for some duality issue.

 

Usually it's religious people that have this kind of problems with their dead body. That is exactly my critique to many religious people they say you have to love your ennemy, to help the people in need, but they don't want to give something of their dead body (sometimes they prefer burning it). Even if there is no religious reason, just a metaphysical (where is the difference?), I do not understand such an attitude; it's just pure egoism, but, as I already said elsewhere,egoism is that what drives the actions of every individual.

 

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

the other issue is based on how the potential donor became dead. Such as being the subject of some attrocity such as the Holocaust, or a traffic accident. What if the donor BODY is not dead, just brain dead? Or if "dying", and the Dr "rushes things along" to provide a more viable organ source?

 

There would just be the need to define when a body can be seen as dead, always without a doctor rushing things along.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Then there is the other side of the coin.

 

 

 

The historical and ongoing effort to hinder or even outright stop scientific research which can benefit humanity. Is this immoral, unethical? Is interference with medical advancement unethical? More or less unethical than usage of knowledge gained from immoral situations?

 

 

Good point I never thought of that before. I think it's a matter of balancing things: is it more unethical to a certain research or is it more unethical to stop it? That depends on every specific research.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: GAHD

I wasn't referring to 'keeping' a clone, more to growing one sans-Ceribrilcortex and doing a full brain transplant.

 

Ex: I'm 60ish, organs beginning to fail. I suply genetic information which is used to create a clone, which is grown in-vitro and kept from gaining Identity(trough early surgury or chemical treatment to the body in question). THe body upon reaching appropriate size is then prepped, and the transplant performed.

 

 

Is it really possible to grow a body that would have no identity? How coul d we prove that he has no identity? there would be needed an absolute proof (I know a proof is always an aboslute proof otherwise it's no proof), something which we aren't even capable to give for all the plants we have got, there are always people who find something that should proof that trees have souls and identity and others that find proofs that should prove the opposite.

 

 

therefore I would say that it is unethical to use such a clone as long as we can't be 100% sure if he has an identity or not.

 

Now, if he had the that proof only partially (like with the trees) then it would be the same thing to grow an apple tree to eat the apple or to grow a clone to take its organs. Just one of the two doesn't look alike a human body and therefore it poses less problems.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

I wasn't referring to 'keeping' a clone, more to growing one sans-Ceribrilcortex and doing a full brain transplant.

 

Ex: I'm 60ish, organs beginning to fail. I suply genetic information which is used to create a clone, which is grown in-vitro and kept from gaining Identity(trough early surgury or chemical treatment to the body in question). THe body upon reaching appropriate size is then prepped, and the transplant performed.

 

One of the big problems, that never seems to be addressed in movies or books, is the length of time involved. There is nothing in cloning technology which would provide for a siignificant reduction in time needed to "grow" the body. Would it work for a "60ish" with organ failure to have to wait 15-20-??? years for the body to reach an appropriate age?