Weindling P
Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine, University of Oxford.
BMJ. 1996 Dec 7;313(7070):1467-70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1467.
Though the Nuremberg medical trial was a United States military tribunal, British forensic pathologists supplied extensive evidence for the trial. The BMJ had a correspondent at the trial, and he endorsed a utilitarian legitimation of clinical experiments, justifying the medical research carried out under Nazism as of long term scientific benefit despite the human costs. The British supported an international medical commission to evaluate the ethics and scientific quality of German research. Medical opinions differed over whether German medical atrocities should be given publicity or treated in confidence. The BMJ's correspondent warned against medical researchers being taken over by a totalitarian state, and these arguments were used to oppose the NHS and any state control over medical research.
尽管纽伦堡医学审判是美国军事法庭进行的,但英国法医病理学家为该审判提供了大量证据。《英国医学杂志》在审判现场有一名记者,他支持临床实验的功利主义合法化,认为纳粹统治下进行的医学研究尽管付出了人命代价,但从长远来看具有科学益处。英国人支持成立一个国际医学委员会来评估德国研究的伦理和科学质量。对于德国医学暴行应予以公开还是保密,医学界存在不同意见。《英国医学杂志》的记者警告医学研究人员要防止被极权国家掌控,这些观点被用来反对国民健康服务体系以及国家对医学研究的任何管控。