Editing Nuremberg Code (section)

==Importance==

The Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. In fact, the Code's reference to [[Hippocratic Oath|Hippocratic duty]] to the individual patient and the need to provide information was not initially favored by the [[American Medical Association]].<ref name="junod05">{{cite book |last1=Junod |first1=Valérie |title=Clinical drug trials Studying the safety and efficacy of new pharmaceuticals |date=2005 |publisher=Schulthess |location=Genève |pages=545 |isbn=9783725550227 |url=http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:43019}}</ref> Katz observes that the Western world initially dismissed the Nuremberg Code as a "code for barbarians, but unnecessary (or superfluous) for ordinary physicians."<ref name="katz96"/><ref name="jacobs12">{{cite journal |last1=Jacobs |first1=Noortje |title=Which Principles, Doctor? The early crystallization of clinical research ethics in the Netherlands, 1947-1955 |journal=Utrecht University |date=1 August 2012 |volume=Prof.dr Frank Huisman |issue=Historical and Comparative Studies of the Sciences and the Humanities |url=https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/253489/masterthesis_NJacobs_August2012.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y}}</ref> Additionally, the final judgment did not specify whether the Code should be applied to cases such as [[political prisoner]]s, convicted felons, and healthy volunteers.{{citation needed|date=April 2021}} The lack of clarity, the brutality of the unethical medical experiments, and the uncompromising language of the Code created an image that it was designed for singularly egregious transgressions.<ref name="katz96">{{cite journal |pmid=8922453|year=1996|last1=Katz|first1=J.|title=The Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Trial. A reappraisal|journal=JAMA|volume=276|issue=20|pages=1662–6|doi=10.1001/jama.1996.03540200048030}}</ref>

However, the Code is considered by some to be the most important document in the history of [[clinical research ethics]], because of its massive influence on global human rights. In the United States, the Code and the related [[Declaration of Helsinki]] influenced the drafting of regulations promulgated by the [[United States Department of Health and Human Services]] to ensure ethical treatment of human research subjects, known as the [[Common Rule]], which is now codified in Part 46 of Title 45 of the [[Code of Federal Regulations]].<ref name="historyandpolicy">{{cite web|url=http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-03.html|title=Patients' rights: from Alder Hey to the Nuremberg Code|last=Hurren|first=Elizabeth|date=May 2002|location=[[United Kingdom]]|work=History & Policy|access-date=9 December 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131207022621/http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-03.html|archive-date=7 December 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="title45">{{cite web|url=https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46?toc=1|title=Protection of Human Subjects|date=13 January 2022|publisher=eCFR|access-date=15 January 2022}}</ref>  These regulations are enforced by [[Institutional review board|Institutional Review Boards]] (IRBs). In 1966, the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] was adopted by the [[United Nations]], and after enough nations had ratified the Covenant, it came into force on 23 March 1976. Article Seven prohibits experiments conducted without the "[[free consent]] to medical or scientific experimentation" of the subject.<ref name=junod05/> As of September 2019, the Covenant has 173 states parties.

In his 2014 review, Gaw observes that the Code "not only entered the legal landscape, but also became the prototype for all future codes of ethical practice across the globe."<ref name=gaw14/> The idea of free or [[informed consent]] also served as the basis for [[International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects]] proposed by the [[World Health Organization]].<ref name=gaw14/>{{failed verification|date=April 2021}} Another notable symposium review was published by the [[Medical University of Vienna]] in 2017: "Medical Ethics in the 70 Years after the Nuremberg Code, 1947 to the Present". President and Rector [[Markus Müller (physician)|Markus Muller]] writes in his introduction that the Code "constitutes one of the most important milestones in the history of medicine, providing for the first time a proper framework for research on human subjects. This milestone was not a voluntary, precautionary measure, but only came into existence in the aftermath of Nazi atrocities. The Nuremberg Code became a cornerstone of clinical research and bioethics."<ref name="czech18">{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/s00508-018-1343-y|title=Medical Ethics in the 70 Years after the Nuremberg Code, 1947 to the Present |year=2018 |last1=Czech |first1=Herwig |last2=Druml |first2=Christiane |last3=Weindling |first3=Paul |journal=Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift |volume=130 |issue=Suppl 3 |pages=159–253 |pmid=29926188|doi-access=free |hdl=21.11116/0000-0002-46AE-C |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

In 1995, Judge [[Sandra Beckwith]] ruled in the case ''In Re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation'' (874 F. Supp 1995) that the Nuremberg Code may be applied in criminal and civil litigation in the [[Federal judiciary of the United States|Federal Courts of the United States]]. <ref>{{cite web |title=In Re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation, 874 F. Supp. 796 (S.D. Ohio 1995) Opinion and Order |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/874/796/1478171/}}</ref>