What double standard?...

ATLANTA (AP) -- Shocking as it may seem, U.S. government doctors once thought it was fine to experiment on disabled people and prison inmates. Such experiments included giving hepatitis to mental patients in Connecticut, squirting a pandemic flu virus up the noses of prisoners in Maryland, and injecting cancer cells into chronically ill people at a New York hospital.

Much of this horrific history is 40 to 80 years old, but it is the backdrop for a meeting in Washington this week by a presidential bioethics commission. The meeting was triggered by the government's apology last fall for federal doctors infecting prisoners and mental patients in Guatemala with syphilis 65 years ago.

…Some of these studies, mostly from the 1940s to the '60s, apparently were never covered by news media. Others were reported at the time, but the focus was on the promise of enduring new cures, while glossing over how test subjects were treated.

Attitudes about medical research were different then. Infectious diseases killed many more people years ago, and doctors worked urgently to invent and test cures. Many prominent researchers felt it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society - people like prisoners, mental patients, poor blacks. It was an attitude in some ways similar to that of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews.

…Around the time of World War II, prisoners were enlisted to help the war effort by taking part in studies that could help the troops. For example, a series of malaria studies at Stateville Penitentiary in Illinois and two other prisons was designed to test antimalarial drugs that could help soldiers fighting in the Pacific.

It was at about this time that prosecution of Nazi doctors in 1947 led to the "Nuremberg Code," a set of international rules to protect human test subjects. Many U.S. doctors essentially ignored them, arguing that they applied to Nazi atrocities -not to American medicine. (emphasis mine)

Goto:

News from The Associated Press

We Americans should not hold a "holier than thou" attitude at all times, sometimes we were, sometimes we weren't.

 

MmmHmm. I think Macrusk pointed out the Canadian experiment with LSD on unsuspecting Canucks. I'm sure there are a lot more we don't know aboot.

 

I dont think we over here have much to bemoan...I think ive mentioned porton down before...voluntary ...servicemen over many years volunteered to helo in cure for common cold..cold my left t......e..but volunteer they did..two mates of mine included...up in pay better food and change of scenery...suffice to say they never took part in any cold cures...I suppose though its one thing to volunteer..even if you were knowingly hoodwinked and being sick or disabled with no say in the matter.

 

That is my opinion as well "urgh", if it is informed consent all the better, if it is done by obviously illegal or unethical methods it should be pre-empted, stopped, and perhaps prosecuted. During the early portion of WW2, here in America there were Consciencious Objectors who volunteed for Keyes studies of "starvation", to determine the absolute minimum caloric intake a normally healthy male could survive on. This however was voluntary, not done by subtrfuge. It was their way of contributing to the war effort.

 

I think eugenics was popular here, Tommy Douglas, who is primarily attributed to be at the forefront of the healthcare movement in Canada in the 60s was a vocal proponent of eugenics in the 30s but changed his views after World War II ended. Heck, in most of Western Canada, eugenics was legal/supported until the mid 70s!

 

Interrogative: Are we talking about forced/ non consensual sterilization or hacking people up to see what makes them tick? I can go either way. Seems like I have a bunch of research material here from a paper I co authored a few years ago; back in the dark days of Macintosh, arguing the pro's and con's of the American Eugenics Program.

So, who will be the first to don the meat vest and jump in the water?

 

What colours the vest...

 

Scarlet red of course.

 

Every country has their dark moments and lapses in judgment. However, seeing as the events of the OT happened 65+ years ago, I don't personally feel the need to apologize for anything, nor do I think that we, as a country, need to apologize for anything unless the individuals in question (the test-ees) are still around. Its history. You learn from it, figure out how it came to pass, and keep your eyes open so that it doesn't happen again. There's too many centuries of recorded history for me to feel guilty for everything that happened. If it was government-sanctioned, we need to put measures in place to ensure it doesn't happen again. If there are still folks living who were tested/experimented upon, we should apologize and make restitution to them, then move on.

 

That's the rub; we're not talking about things which happened 65 years ago. The practice of Eugenics is something that was taking place up until about 30 years ago.
Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it's most base for Eugenics is the practice of genetic preference and removal of undesirable traits.

 

I live 18 miles from Tuskegee , Alabama, and am reminded of the pre WW2 study of the effects of syphilis on black males using hundreds of unsuspecting men. Half were give currently recognized medical treatment and half a placebo then watched for years. Unimaginable to me today but obviously thought to be legitimate at the time.

 

There's a lot went on those days we'll probably never find out about. It was considered normal, not that it excuses such behaviour now.

 

I don't think it was ever really considered normal or morally correct, to trick people into taking part in medical experiments, the purpose of which they were never truly informed.