Talk:Nuremberg Code

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dhk0308. Peer reviewers: Henryschuh, Jshamul, KaylaMa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Mandatory Vaccination/Water Fluoridation Controversy Section
I suggest that a qualified Wikipedia contributor add a section to this article to address the prima-facie conflict and corresponding controversy regarding potential and actual mandatory vaccination schemes and involuntary imposed fluoridation of drinking water in nations and communities across the globe (particularly in the U.S., which seems to be bucking the trend of easing this practice; due, presumably, in large part to findings such as that by The Lancet (British Medical Journal - March 2014) that fluoridated water directly correlates to substantial reduced intelligence quotients in those subjected to it and the very first sentence of the Nuremberg Code (that being: "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.")

Ref: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(14)70119-X/fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.216.9.154 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * if that's the bit being quoted, that applies to the clinical trials but not so much to mandates, even emergency use. Irtapil (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The article you linked to does in fact refute the claims of fluoride influence on IQ score.
 * "No credible scientific studies show a relation between fluoride consumption and IQ levels; however, several have shown that fluoride ingested at recommended levels is not harmful."
 * --Óli Gneisti (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Óli Gneisti That claim may or may not have been true at the time of writing (2014), but it is certainly not true now.
 * Effect of fluoridated water on intelligence in 10-12-year-old school children 2016 Dec, JISCPD: "A significant inverse relationship was found between the fluoride concentration in drinking water and IQ (r value = −0.204; P < 0.000). It was observed that IQ level was negatively correlated with fluoride concentration in drinking water."
 * Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 2012 Oct, Environmental Health Perspectives: "Results: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease."
 * Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico 2017 Sep, Environmental Health Perspectives: "In multivariate models we found that an increase in maternal urine fluoride of 0.5 mg/L (approximately the IQR) predicted 3.15 (95% CI: −5.42, −0.87) and 2.50 (95% CI −4.12, −0.59) lower offspring GCI and IQ scores, respectively."
 * Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada 2019 Aug, JAMA Network: "Maternal exposure to higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years. These findings indicate the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy."
 * Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort 2020 Jan, Environment International: "An increase of 0.5 mg/L in water fluoride concentration (approximately equaling the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions) corresponded to a 9.3- and 6.2-point decrement in Performance IQ among formula-fed (95% CI: −13.77, −4.76) and breast-fed children (95% CI: −10.45, −1.94)."
 * It is also important to note that these studies only touch on the topic of IQ. There are many more studies showing a wide range of negative health effects ranging from dementia to fertility. Tempes1 (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The details of that might be a useful contribution to an article on Fluoride but it is a bit too tangential to this one. Irtapil (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Conveniently ignoring forced vaccinations, coerced through every mass media outlet? Yep that's wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.107.106.50 (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I was about to suggest the same section. That's what I came here looking for. I don't have time to write something appropriate any time soon, but I'll try to find a few references to get someone started. Irtapil (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Why would such content be WP:DUE for this article? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
An update is mandatory since the code has been revised several times..and, IMHO, is loosing ground (regarding mentally disabled e.g.)
 * The Nuremberg code is not the only set of guidelines for human treatment. There are a host of other such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, various Geneva conventions, local and national laws, Hippocratic Oath (or modern equivalents), etc. etc. etc. -- FirstPrinciples 21:19, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Pediatric experimentation?
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent"

So in the case of experimentation upon children, such as in pediatric clinical trials of a new drug, does a typical protocol designate the parent or guardian as "the person involved"? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In answer to the above - The Nuremburg Code was not an acceptable framework for the inclusion of children in medical research - see Ramsey vs McCormack throughout the seventies - the inclusion of children in research under very strict regulation was established when the code was incorporated into the Helsinki declaration of 1964. In that year the MRC also published its guidelines relating to paediatric experimentation and noted that they should be subject to no greater than the minimum potential harm, though this has later been extended by both the RCPCH in the UK and National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in the US, to include research that involve more minimum risk under very specific provisions.

Add to this the fact that children between the ages of 16 and 18 and those deemed Gillick competent in the UK can probably consent to research without the need for proxy parental or guardian consent, just as is possible for consenting to medical treatment.

What I would like is a reference to the text supplied quoting the Code?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.68 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Worldview tag
What is it about this that is not representative of a worldwide view. Keep in mind this page is just about the code, not about what alternatives exist. The page can be quite reputable without noting every alternative that exists, however, if you can think of other put them in See also section. I am removing the tag because it was not discussed. Ans e  ll  Review my progress! 00:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

the citation needed is probably the following book available german language Mitscherlich, A. und Mielke, F. (Hrsg.): Medizin ohne Menschlichkeit. Dokumente des Nürnberger Ärzteprozesses. Frankfurt a.M. 1960, S. 272f. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.33.233.254 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nuremberg Code-A critique.
Should we discuss this?

Abstract The Nuremberg Code drafted at the end of the Doctor's trial in Nuremberg 1947 has been hailed as a landmark document in medical and research ethics. Close examination of this code reveals that it was based on the Guidelines for Human Experimentation of 1931. The resemblance between these documents is uncanny. It is unfortunate that the authors of the Nuremberg Code passed it off as their original work. There is evidence that the defendants at the trial did request that their actions be judged on the basis of the 1931 Guidelines, in force in Germany. The prosecutors, however, ignored the request and tried the defendants for crimes against humanity, and the judges included the Nuremberg Code as a part of the judgment. Six of ten principles in Nuremberg Code are derived from the 1931 Guidelines, and two of four newly inserted principles are open to misinterpretation. There is little doubt that the Code was prepared after studying the Guidelines, but no reference was made to the Guidelines, for reasons that are not known. Using the Guidelines as a base document without giving due credit is plagiarism; as per our understanding of ethics today, this would be considered unethical. The Nuremberg Code has fallen by the wayside; since unlike the Declaration of Helsinki, it is not regularly reviewed and updated. The regular updating of some ethics codes is evidence of the evolving nature of human ethics.

Ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21731859

Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This reference can be added in the main article - Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Dhk0308, very nice job on the article! I liked how you dove into the prewar German Medical Association and gave us the history of the that and the platforms that existed in that organization. I think you could have maybe went more into this part of the edit, "referring National Socialism as applied biology". I was a little confused if you meant that National Socialism was called applied biology. I think it would be nice if you could combine the authorship section into the background section maybe. I think that would be helpful for organization purposes. Overall I think you touched on all the important points and presented it in an digestible manner!Jshamul (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The article seems complete and well-researched, giving a good overview aligning with my own understanding. First, a few formatting comments: using "we"/personal pronouns seems inconsistent with the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, and also, there are quite a few terms you could link to other other related articles ("racial hygiene", the Nazi government, Nuremberg, to name a few in the first section). Second, the 10 points of the code should be cited, and if you're quoting directly, that should be indicated. Lastly I think the "Background" section could be divided up into multiple sections - I'd say that the politics of pre-WWII Germany count as "background" but discussion of the Nuremberg trials themselves should be in a separate section. This part on the trials could also be expanded if more details are available. Really good overall!

Henryschuh (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi! Really enjoyed reading your article, and especially like the "See also" section at the end which provides people links to related Wikipedia pages. An area for improvement is that some parts of the "Significance" section seem to be not as objective. For example, more examples and elaborations could be given for the "lack of clarity" and "uncompromising language" of the code to explain the point more fully, because just stating that seems rather unsubstantiated. Reading the article made me also wonder whether the code had impacts on specific scientific studies - whether it actually provided some sort of checks and balances for studies designed by specific countries, or affected (or not) the design of specific human experimentation studies after the Code was created. So if more specific examples could be given in those areas it would make the article even better. Good job overall! KaylaMa (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dhk0308, great job on editing the background and adding authorship and significance to the page. All the information is presented very clearly. One thing I would suggest is to proofread your article again and improve transitions. For example, in the first paragraph of Significance section, there are some repetitive phrases. --Gaukulius (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)