The Instigator
iramski
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheSpoonyRealist
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should the nazi data collected in the holocaust be used?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheSpoonyRealist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,793 times Debate No: 67298
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

iramski

Pro

Millions of people died in the name of what they called science yet these expiriments were unlawful, unethical and unreasonable. Because these expiriments weren't based on scientific hypothesis and theories formed over time most people call them biased basically because they were racially motivated. I strongly agree, Jewishvirtuallibrary.org explained "Nazi Concentration Camp science is often branded as bad science. First, it is doubtful that physiological responses of the tortured and maimed victims represented the responses of the people for whom the experiments were meant to benefit. Second, additional doubts about the scientific integrity of the experiments surface when we consider the Nazi doctors' political aspirations and their enthusiasm for medical conclusions that proved Nazi racial theory. Finally, the fact that the Nazi experiments were not officially published nor replicated raises doubts about the data's scientific accuracy. " This is entirely true. Something we later found out about a brutal experiment done by the Nazis is that parts of the Nazi data on hypothermia were not dependable because of inconsistencies found in Rascher's lab notes. According to Rascher's official report to Himmler, it took from 53 to 100 minutes to kill the frozen prisoners. Alexander's inspection of Rascher's personal lab record revealed that it actually took from 80 minutes to five or six hours to kill the subjects.He later concluded that parts of the Nazi data on hypothermia were not dependable because of inconsistencies found in Rascher's lab notes. According to Rascher's official report to Himmler, it took from 53 to 100 minutes to kill the frozen prisoners. Alexander's inspection of Rascher's personal lab record revealed that it actually took from 80 minutes to five or six hours to kill the subjects" in conclusion not only is the Nazi data incorrect but it would also be wrong to use it today!
TheSpoonyRealist

Con

Hello, I will be arguing the pro side of the proposition (Don't mind that it says con, the OP was confused). Let me start by saying that my opponent made very good points in her argument; I will immediately concede the immorality of the manner the experiments were done. Many experiments in fact, had no scientific value whatsoever. However let me state my argument:

If there is one instance in which using Nazi data is justified, then I have been successful with my BOP.

Now, I am glad that my opponent mentioned Rascher's experiments concerning hypothermia, frostbite and their treatments. I again concede that certain parts of the experiment were unscientific in nature and should be disregarded. However, I am most interested in the end result of the experiments, which suggests the fastest way to reheat a still living hypothermia/frostbite patient was to immerse the body in warm water. This is, in fact, one of the methods used to treat hypothermia today (provided of course one is in a medical setting as to monitor blood pressure so as to avoid rapid changes which CAN be harmful). According to Sea Grant Minnesota, one can"Immerse the victim's trunk but keep the arms and legs out of a warm bath (maximum temperature of 115" F (46" C))." Frostbite also has the same treatment according to a study by Princeton.

Now, despite the scientific failings of the Nazi experiments, this one at the very least provided the world with a measurable and testable benefit, and that is the treatment of hypothermia and frostbite. My opponent would say that we should not use such treatments due to the immorality of how the data was collected, and had the results gathered been debatable, I would certainly share the sentiment. However, to have a known treatment and not use it would be immoral within itself. Should the lives of those who were murdered during these experiments be in vain, due to someone refusing to use such data, even when it could be used to save more lives? In the United States alone, more than 700 people die of hypothermia a year. My opponent would like to speak of 'incorrect' but in my belief what would be incorrect is to allow people to needlessly die when something could be done to stop it.

Now, allow me to repeat my burden of proof. If it can be proven that there is even once instance in which data collected from Nazi experiments could be put to use, then I have achieved my goal. With this experiment alone, I can count about 700 per year in one specific country. I await my opponent's reply in round two.

Sources:
http://seagrant.umn.edu...
http://www.princeton.edu...
http://www.comingbackalive.com...
Debate Round No. 1
iramski

Pro

Granted, my opponent argued that he lives of people would be in vain if we just wasted the data collected by the experiment but I found an article from the newspaper "scientific journal" that said "I agree that setting ethical standards can be a tricky business. But just because there may not be a precise yardstick with which to measure each experiment is no reason whatsoever to dismiss the need for ethical concerns. We must make it clear that experiments in which human rights are violated are not acceptable for scientists and society, no matter which country is involved." Even though the data used may be useful today we cant just look at this factor

We also have to think about the ethical point of view a survivor of the torturous experiments during the holocaust said "Nazi Concentration Camp science is often branded as bad science. First, it is doubtful that physiological responses of the tortured and maimed victims represented the responses of the people for whom the experiments were meant to benefit. Second, additional doubts about the scientific integrity of the experiments surface when we consider the Nazi doctors' political aspirations and their enthusiasm for medical conclusions that proved Nazi racial theory. Finally, the fact that the Nazi experiments were not officially published nor replicated raises doubts about the data's scientific accuracy."

Humor me, since it is a fact that Information in medical records is considered highly private and sensitive. Medical ethics rules, state laws, and the federal law known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), generally require doctors and their staff to keep patients' medical records confidential, unless the patient allows the doctor's office to disclose them. And as far as I'm concerned the article above explains the fact that a Nazi survivor didn't want her past medical experiments shared with others. Sharing this data isn't even legal! What gives people the right to avoid these laws just because it happened years ago?
TheSpoonyRealist

Con

I would like to start off by stating a few of my points that my opponent did not bother mentioning in her response to my argument, the first of which being the lives that Nazi research could indeed save in the future. Secondly, she ignores the fact that I already stated that the end result of Raschner's experiments have been proven outside of said experiments and the data is used today. Instead of acknowledging this second point, she again asserts that the experiments were flawed. The fact that they were is not what we are debating. We are trying to figure out whether the data should be used. I again concede that this, like many Nazi experiments were flawed, but part of it is CURRENTLY being used to treat hypothermia and frostbite, and is saving lives in the process. Third, although the victims of these experiments were not "the people for whom the experiments were meant to benefit" that does not take away from the fact that the practice of immersing a patient in warm water is both an effective means of treating hypothermia/frostbite AND a result of the Nazi's collected data. "Bad Science" thought it may be, has proven to be effective.

As for the entirety of the my opponent's third paragraph, I would like to remind my opponent that HIPAA was an American bill enacted in 1996, while the experiments were performed in the early 1900s in Germany. Even if the law were to apply, my opponent would be arguing that privacy concerns are more important than the potential to save human lives. Now, I respect the right to life, liberty, and property, but would it not be fair to say that the right to life outweighs that of privacy? The proposition I am arguing is whether the data 'should' be used rather than if they 'can' be used. In a debate concerning solely ethics, my mind would be swayed, but that would be to ignore the moral implications of allowing people to suffer needlessly in the present day. Furthermore, I would like to look over my opponent's sources if she would be so kind as to provide them.

From a moral point of view, it would be counter intuitive to say that the results of this experiment should not be used, as the right to life is generally agreed upon by most government bodies and philosophers worldwide. From my opponent's comments, I can only assume that she would refuse treatment of a hypothermia/frostbite patient with this method of treatment, even thought it has been proven to work by various scientific bodies (I point you to the sources I provided earlier for confirmation). From an ethical point of view, I can say that the use of this data is in fact legal, and it is only a matter of opinion whether or not it should be used.

Let me remind you of my burden of proof once more. If I can prove that there is even one instance in which Nazi data should be used, then I have accomplished my goal. I believe I have done this, and yet my opponent has yet to provide evidence to the contrary. I await my opponent's final response in round three.
Debate Round No. 2
iramski

Pro

I feel that most of the data used couldn't even be used today due to the irrelevance, lack of evidence and unlawfulness of these experiments.

first of all its quit obvious that these experiments were unlawful, but how unlawful? From July 1944 to September 1944, experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp to study the viability of making sea water drinkable. The subjects were deprived of all food and given only chemically processed sea water. The experiments caused great pain and suffering, resulting in extreme dehydration and organ failure. can you imagine trying to drink but having nothing but salt water to drink, you know its going to make you long for fresh water even more, yet you cant resist the urge. Just imagine waiting for the next person to wash the floors just so you can try to get a lick of the fresh water they had used to wash the floors. Never will this ever quench your thirst and you know that but this is your only hope for getting out alive. Would this experiment be ok to use data from today? Your answer should be no, so why should we use it from some 60 some years ago! This dreadful experiment was probably the best and least deadly compared to the others conducted. we should respect people and have the same rules to apply to people of the past that apply to us today.

Second, lack of evidence. No one know what conditions these patients were in when these tests were done o them. we don't know there gender, and we don't know how old they were. all of these could be deciding factor in an experiment. if a man 70 years of age was severely malnourished obviously there going to die before a healthy 21 year old. so obviously there wasn't enough data collected to be usable.

lastly, the irrelevance is pretty significant. a high altitude experiment was performed where they experimented on how far away from the ocean a man could fall in an air suit without dying. this experiment was one of the most obvious fueled by Genocide. This is because most of the time when an aircraft was going down or is going down in a war the aircraft is going down either due to a mount function or getting shot . this is agreeable, but during the experiments done on these prisoners none of them were even dropped around the same distance the aircraft's flew then! yea, a little unethical!
TheSpoonyRealist

Con

I would like to start off by conceding a few statements my opponent made. Many of the Nazi experiments were indeed flawed, immoral, and I am in no way insinuating they should ever be repeated. However the fact of the matter is that they have been done, and if any amount of them could possibly be used to save future lives (as is the case with Rascher's final observations that rewarming in hot water is the fastest way of treating hypothermia or frostbite), then that data should be used.

Furthermore, my opponent noted two cases: the salt water experiment and the high altitude experiment, neither of which provided any benefit. I absolutely agree that no data should be used from these two experiments and again concede to the fact that they were flawed, unethical, and served little purpose. My burden of proof, however, is not to prove that data from ALL of the Nazi experiments should be used, only that the data from Nazi experiments should be used in even ONE instance. I believe that the treatment of hypothermia and frostbite is indeed that instance, so her absolutely fallacious appeal to pity concerning the other two experiments can safely be ignored without consequence to my own argument.

Now, allow me to debunk a few points my opponent made. She mentioned "most" (not all, mind you) of the evidence was irrelevant. Using the case of the Rascher freezing experiment, I would hardly call a treatment to save over 700 lives every year irrelevant. She also mentioned a "lack of evidence" which I must stress is absolutely false. Modern day paramedics currently use rewarming in hot water for frostbite victims of all ages, and do so as well with hypothermia victims provided that vitals can be monitored. What more evidence can one need than the fact that it is successfully used in modern day medical practices? Should we stop using this treatment altogether because of the immorality of how the experiments were conducted? No, because as terrible as the experiments were, the data exists today. To not use the data which can be successfully be proven as fact would be folly.

In conclusion, I believe we could all agree that the Nazi experiments is a black mark on human history. They should have never happened, and it is unfortunate that many still bear the scars today. However, if there is ANY scientific or medical value that could be gained in using the data, then it should be used. I ask the judges not to fall to my opponent's appeals to pity or emotion, rather let logic win the day. Why should we stop using treatments that have been proven effective, thus endangering the lives of people living today?

I thank you for your time, and I thank my opponent for a well thought out debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
I found Pros source and it agrees with you. Pro only read the 1/2 the article and not the second 1/2 that has the same argument you have.
Posted by TheSpoonyRealist 2 years ago
TheSpoonyRealist
PLEASE REMEMBER TO VOTE FOR THE RIGHT PERSON. THOUGH I AM LISTED AS CON AND MY OPPONENT AS PRO, WE ARGUED THE OPPOSITE POSITIONS!

And oh dear god. Half a year for voting?
Posted by TheSpoonyRealist 2 years ago
TheSpoonyRealist
Ah well, I accepted and shall be formulating my response. I'm not exactly sure if this is even an argument I can find evidence for, but I've found that debating positions tough positions is a very good way to practice.
Posted by TheSpoonyRealist 2 years ago
TheSpoonyRealist
I am thinking of taking up the debate, though I assume you want me to debate the pro side NOT the con side, right?
Posted by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
You chose PRO but are advocating the CON position...
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
I agree, but you put "pro"!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
iramskiTheSpoonyRealistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fulfilled there BoP; however, more examples would have made a stronger argument. Pro Did not have a good rebuttal for why we should not use warm water for frostbite has the Nazi data states. Pro had only one source, one that disagrees with there argument and agrees with Cons argument. Pro should have read the full page under the heading "Benefits to Society" Con had several sources.