4 ms·

From the first point of the Nuremberg Code: 'The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should hav

From the first point of the Nuremberg Code: 'The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code

SlowBall 5y ago
And your point is? No one is strapping down Google employees to a chair to inject them with a vaccine. They are free not to take it if they chose to do so, and accept the consequences of their actions like any adult would.
- shrubble 5y ago
  I'd classify 'get an experimental vaccine with known possibility of side effects or we fire you from your job' as 'element of force', 'duress', and 'coercion'. Am I to understand that you would not?
  - SlowBall 5y ago
    You know, you make a good point. I think the problem with your argument is equating the covid vaccine to medical experimentation as considered in the Nuremberg Code. That code was written as the result of the Nazi experimentation of human subjects. The covid vaccine is technically experimental under the FDA definition only because it hasn't received full approval yet, but it has already gone through trials that (to some extent) have proved its safety. I don't think "medical experiment" has used in the code is the same as in the case of the covid vaccine as of today.
    - DannyBee 5y ago
      Totally right. Absolutely all human medicine is experimental in the same way the person is using "experimental vaccine". Anything else would not be science. The only question is usually how many experiments have been run and on who and what do we extrapolate from them. But make no mistake - nothing could possibly be proven safe to a given person without having been tested on that person. You are unique. This is precisely why this is not the standard used for safety, and can't be. Maybe some century we will have that capability, but it does not exist right now. If you go buy an orange from the grocery store, that's experimental in the same way - i guarantee you it's mutated at least a little from the other oranges you've eaten. How can you be sure the mutations will not have a harmful effect? (This isn't even a joke - mutation is quite common in citrus, and thing like the cara cara came from natural orange tree mutations) As far as testing goes - in the history of vaccines that were deployed quickly (polio, smallpox, etc), the covid vaccines are very well tested. The space of things we don't continuously test and track for safety is basically infinite, and the likelihood of harm coming from that infinite space of untested things is much greater (overall) than "a thing we've given to hundreds of millions of people and explicitly kept track of the side effects" This is proven to be true again and again - eventually we notice the effect of things we weren't looking at, take some of them, test them, and say "well crap, actually, this is really harmful". Meanwhile, outside of intentional fraud/malice, it's much more rare that the things we are testing and tracking continuously on large groups of people turn out that way. When they do, it's often because of long term effects you couldn't discover without time anyway.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    How is this functionally different from mandatory vaccinations currently required for schooling? Companies have a responsibility to provide a safe workplace. If some people are disinterested in avoiding harm to their coworkers, employers are under no obligation to indulge them in that.
dtwest 5y ago
Being stuck working at Google or Facebook is a bit different than being stuck in a concentration camp from the perspective of consent don't you think? I'm not belittling the discussion that our society must have about what can or can't be mandated by an employer. However, I doubt the above quote was created in the context of high paying tech jobs, they were focused on the forced experimentation that occurred in WW2.
- shrubble 5y ago
  The movement/positions of the German medical establishment started in the mid-1920s... some 8 years before Hitler even had any political power.
  - dtwest 5y ago
    That may be true, but your quote is from 1947.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  If you have a mortgage and a child, do you really have the freedom to say “no” when something becomes a condition of your continued employment? Corporations, very much including google, are becoming defacto governments having a huge control in the flow of information and have threads weaved in to all of our lives. You can’t just give them a pass to do anything they want just because they’re technically not government. The quote should apply to any entity with power over people trying to take away their ability to consent.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    You have the freedom to say no, but it is certainly into the territority of "duress"
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      This is the evolution of oppression and control. Just add money to make it seem like everyone has freedom. No longer are people going to stab you with something pointy and drive you out of your home if you don't accept control, they'll drive you out of your home by giving you the "choice" of accepting control or losing your salary. Feudalism is back but disguised as real estate investment and trillion dollar corporate overlords giving you a salary.
6f8986c3 5y ago
There are several reasons for this being in the Nuremberg Code. - Nazis conducted horrific medical experiments on Jewish prisoners (who were mostly German citizens as well!). In fact, pretty much everything we know about hypothermia came from the Nazis freezing and attempting to revive prisoners. - Nazis often used promises of medical treatment to ensure compliance. The famous "showers" were one such example. Prisoners were then sent into a room -- complete with showerheads, soap, and even puddles! -- to be gassed. - Nazi propagandists created documentaries showing Jewish, Romani, and other "undesirable" communities as "disease-ridden". It is easier to convince normal people to betray "undesirables" when "normal people" believe they are protecting both their own health, as well as the health of their communities.
- jeofken 5y ago
  Regarding forced experiments freezing and thawing people, can you link me some primary sources, preferably records and photos rather than just accounts? I speak German if that’s a prerequisite.
bshoemaker 5y ago
Found Marjorie Taylor Greene! Moved on from the Holocaust comparisons, at least.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
And yet, we widely have mandatory vaccinations for other things like schooling. Your right to bodily autonomy does not extend to a right to put others at risk of harm.

SlowBall 5y ago

And your point is? No one is strapping down Google employees to a chair to inject them with a vaccine. They are free not to take it if they chose to do so, and accept the consequences of their actions like any adult would.

shrubble 5y ago
I'd classify 'get an experimental vaccine with known possibility of side effects or we fire you from your job' as 'element of force', 'duress', and 'coercion'. Am I to understand that you would not?
- SlowBall 5y ago
  You know, you make a good point. I think the problem with your argument is equating the covid vaccine to medical experimentation as considered in the Nuremberg Code. That code was written as the result of the Nazi experimentation of human subjects. The covid vaccine is technically experimental under the FDA definition only because it hasn't received full approval yet, but it has already gone through trials that (to some extent) have proved its safety. I don't think "medical experiment" has used in the code is the same as in the case of the covid vaccine as of today.
  - DannyBee 5y ago
    Totally right. Absolutely all human medicine is experimental in the same way the person is using "experimental vaccine". Anything else would not be science. The only question is usually how many experiments have been run and on who and what do we extrapolate from them. But make no mistake - nothing could possibly be proven safe to a given person without having been tested on that person. You are unique. This is precisely why this is not the standard used for safety, and can't be. Maybe some century we will have that capability, but it does not exist right now. If you go buy an orange from the grocery store, that's experimental in the same way - i guarantee you it's mutated at least a little from the other oranges you've eaten. How can you be sure the mutations will not have a harmful effect? (This isn't even a joke - mutation is quite common in citrus, and thing like the cara cara came from natural orange tree mutations) As far as testing goes - in the history of vaccines that were deployed quickly (polio, smallpox, etc), the covid vaccines are very well tested. The space of things we don't continuously test and track for safety is basically infinite, and the likelihood of harm coming from that infinite space of untested things is much greater (overall) than "a thing we've given to hundreds of millions of people and explicitly kept track of the side effects" This is proven to be true again and again - eventually we notice the effect of things we weren't looking at, take some of them, test them, and say "well crap, actually, this is really harmful". Meanwhile, outside of intentional fraud/malice, it's much more rare that the things we are testing and tracking continuously on large groups of people turn out that way. When they do, it's often because of long term effects you couldn't discover without time anyway.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  How is this functionally different from mandatory vaccinations currently required for schooling? Companies have a responsibility to provide a safe workplace. If some people are disinterested in avoiding harm to their coworkers, employers are under no obligation to indulge them in that.

dtwest 5y ago

Being stuck working at Google or Facebook is a bit different than being stuck in a concentration camp from the perspective of consent don't you think? I'm not belittling the discussion that our society must have about what can or can't be mandated by an employer. However, I doubt the above quote was created in the context of high paying tech jobs, they were focused on the forced experimentation that occurred in WW2.

shrubble 5y ago
The movement/positions of the German medical establishment started in the mid-1920s... some 8 years before Hitler even had any political power.
- dtwest 5y ago
  That may be true, but your quote is from 1947.
colechristensen 5y ago
If you have a mortgage and a child, do you really have the freedom to say “no” when something becomes a condition of your continued employment? Corporations, very much including google, are becoming defacto governments having a huge control in the flow of information and have threads weaved in to all of our lives. You can’t just give them a pass to do anything they want just because they’re technically not government. The quote should apply to any entity with power over people trying to take away their ability to consent.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  You have the freedom to say no, but it is certainly into the territority of "duress"
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    This is the evolution of oppression and control. Just add money to make it seem like everyone has freedom. No longer are people going to stab you with something pointy and drive you out of your home if you don't accept control, they'll drive you out of your home by giving you the "choice" of accepting control or losing your salary. Feudalism is back but disguised as real estate investment and trillion dollar corporate overlords giving you a salary.

6f8986c3 5y ago

There are several reasons for this being in the Nuremberg Code. - Nazis conducted horrific medical experiments on Jewish prisoners (who were mostly German citizens as well!). In fact, pretty much everything we know about hypothermia came from the Nazis freezing and attempting to revive prisoners. - Nazis often used promises of medical treatment to ensure compliance. The famous "showers" were one such example. Prisoners were then sent into a room -- complete with showerheads, soap, and even puddles! -- to be gassed. - Nazi propagandists created documentaries showing Jewish, Romani, and other "undesirable" communities as "disease-ridden". It is easier to convince normal people to betray "undesirables" when "normal people" believe they are protecting both their own health, as well as the health of their communities.

jeofken 5y ago
Regarding forced experiments freezing and thawing people, can you link me some primary sources, preferably records and photos rather than just accounts? I speak German if that’s a prerequisite.

bshoemaker 5y ago

Found Marjorie Taylor Greene! Moved on from the Holocaust comparisons, at least.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

And yet, we widely have mandatory vaccinations for other things like schooling. Your right to bodily autonomy does not extend to a right to put others at risk of harm.