Biomedical Research: The Nuremberg Code

The original intentions behind The Nuremberg Code, which some credit as being the first set of ethical guidelines for the conduct of biomedical research, were to not only prevent the cruelty of the experiments mentioned during the Nuremberg Trials from being repeated, but also to have a future set of rules for investigators to be able to follow, and potentially prosecute, if it came it came to it again. While it is often regarded as being the first document of its kind, The Nuremberg Code was very heavily based in the Guidelines for Human Experimentation of 1931 (1931 Guidelines): a trend that has continued with each new set of ethical guidelines that is produced. The Nuremberg Code paved the way for the subsequent set of ethical guidelines,
While it doesn’t explicitly credit -or even acknowledge- The Nuremberg Code, the similarities between them are undeniable. It is regularly updated and reviewed, and focuses on the obligations to the research subjects. Both The Nuremberg Code and the DoH are models for current U.S. research regulations, which will be further discussed later, in that they all require informed consent (from the subject or a proxy), and a prior peer research of research protocols (Shuster, "Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code"). While they are similar, there are some stark differences; The Nuremberg Code requires consent from the subject and The Declaration of Helsinki is more allowing, permitting a proxy to consent in their place. The differences aren’t just between The Nuremberg Code and the DoH, it’s also between the original (pre published) copy of the DoH and the then final copy. The unedited copy said that the subject could leave the experiment at any time they feel unable to wholly physically or mentally finish it, while the revised version specified that the researchers had an obligation to bring the experiment to an end if they felt it could hurt the subject, as well as the subject or proxy being able to pull out at any time (Carlson, Kenneth, & David, ““The Revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: Past, Present and Future”). While the DoH did have some relatively drastic edits between its creation and
This committee was created by Congress in 1974 in response to the public reaction to the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments. They were required to identify the ethical principles and develop guidelines for the conduct of ethical research involving human subjects. Five years later, they had The Belmont Report drafted (“The Belmont Report”). It defined the boundaries between research and practice, and recognized the three most important principles: autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Each principle had a different group assigned to it so there was no risk of failure of compliance. Of course each of these sets of guidelines had their own limitations, and problems. None of them were perfect. Ethical guidelines could never, and will never be perfect. Ethics is a matter of opinion, what one person may find completely ethical, might be completely atrocious, and off putting to another. And even what is already set in stone, what is already fairly unspecific and ambiguous, can be completely switched around. Some adults (18+) may have the maturity of a child, and agree to a trial that they might not completely understand, even if it is explained to