Reply To: The Nuremberg Code and the ethics of the secret ‘Kang Repair’

[pinto]

@Herniated claims:
1 “[The K] Repair … in my opinion [is] contrary to the Code [the Nuremberg Code, that is]”.
2 [K] essentially makes up his method as he goes along.
3 By not having an established or firm method, [K] conducts not surgery in the conventional sense but experimentation on patients [by which he can test and develop his method presumably].

In other words, Herniated is saying that patients are unwittingly made to be unconsenting subjects in an experiment because the surgeon’s purpose is to experiment by which he can develop his method rather than– surgery believed by patients likely to correct their medical problem. Herniated calls [K] Repair a “secret” implying that Dr. K purposely keeps details of his method secret as expressed by Herniated himself: “Why are [K Repair details] kept secret? Is that ethical to keep the patient/subject in the dark? I don’t think so!”
Thus Herniated believes Dr. K’s actions trigger violations of the Nuremberg Code [hereafter, NC].

The NC developed in response to the biomedical experimentation on “concentration camp prisoners”—obviously unconsenting subjects. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html The NC thrust was to protect human rights of experimental subjects. https://nazidoctorsandnurembergtrials.wordpress.com/

What evidence is there that Dr. K violates human rights? None! Surely his patients would laugh at the suggestion. Herniated claims are so wild that absolutely one must consider racism as the motivator. Note before I said as much, I asked Herniated what led him to such an extreme approach but received no reply.

I see nothing in Herniated’s post that evinces violations of human rights; therefore his use of the NC is not just unwarranted but irresponsible as well.