By Saranac Hale Spencer
\nFactCheck.org<\/p>\n
A bogus claim that \u201c[v]accines are in direct violation of The Nuremberg Code\u201d has been circulating on social media. Actually, the Nuremberg Code addresses the treatment of human subjects in medical experiments and says nothing about the use of tested and authorized vaccines on patients.<\/p>\n
The code of medical ethics created in response to Nazi experiments during the Holocaust has been misrepresented by those pushing an anti-vaccine message during the\u00a0COVID-19 pandemic<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is just the latest example of a falsehood aimed at discrediting vaccines during the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2. Since April, we\u2019ve debunked at least\u00a0three<\/a>\u00a0other<\/a>\u00a0claims<\/a>\u00a0aimed at the same thing.<\/p>\n Now, Facebook pages dedicated to\u00a0conspiracy<\/a>\u00a0theories<\/a>\u00a0and<\/a>\u00a0the\u00a0anti-vaccine<\/a>\u00a0movement<\/a>\u00a0are posting claims\u00a0that<\/a>\u00a0say<\/a>, in part: \u201cVaccines are in direct violation of The Nuremberg Code.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s not true.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Nuremberg<\/a>\u00a0Code<\/a>\u00a0was written in 1947 during the\u00a0trial<\/a>\u00a0in Nuremberg, Germany, of\u00a0doctors<\/a>\u00a0who\u00a0conducted medical experiments<\/a>\u00a0on more than\u00a07,000 concentration camp prisoners<\/a>\u00a0during World War II. They tested ways to improve the chances of survival for Nazi soldiers in the field. They tested medical procedures and drugs. They conducted experiments to support their ideological view of racial superiority.<\/p>\n All of these experiments were done without the consent of the subjects.<\/p>\n That\u2019s what the Nuremberg Code addressed \u2014 the treatment of human subjects in medical experiments.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s about human experiments,\u201d\u00a0Jonathan Moreno<\/a>, a medical ethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said of the Nuremberg Code in an email to FactCheck.org, emphasizing that the claim is false.<\/p>\n The code says nothing about the use of tested and authorized\u00a0vaccines or treatments on patients.<\/p>\n \u201cThe purpose of the code was to say that what the Nazi doctors did would never happen again,\u201d\u00a0George Annas<\/a>, director of the Center for Health Law, Ethics & Human Rights at Boston University School of Public Health, said in an interview with FactCheck.org.<\/p>\n Both Moreno and Annas said that the code could not be interpreted to bar vaccination.<\/p>\n The basis for this claim goes back much further than the pandemic, though. As is often the case with false claims like this, it appears to have evolved from a more vague suggestion made years ago.<\/p>\n In the 1990s, a prominent vaccine critic, Barbara Loe Fisher, cited one of the core principles stated in the Nuremberg Code \u2014 informed consent \u2014 to support her argument that parents should have more freedom to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children. All 50 states\u00a0require<\/a>\u00a0children to be vaccinated in order to start school, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. All 50 states also have medical exemptions, while 45 states and the District of Columbia offer\u00a0religious exemptions<\/a>.<\/p>\n But Loe Fisher appears to have mixed up two different lineages of informed consent \u2014 the one that applies to subjects of medical experimentation (as in the case of the Nuremberg Code) and the one that applies to patients in a regular health care setting (as in the case of vaccines).<\/p>\n In a\u00a0television appearance<\/a>\u00a0in 1997, Loe Fisher said: \u201cInformed consent has been the gold standard in medical practice ever since the Nuremberg Codes were passed after World War II. There should be no exception for vaccination.\u201d<\/p>\n The website for her organization \u2014 the National Vaccine Information Center, which we\u2019ve\u00a0written about before<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 has a\u00a0post<\/a>\u00a0that acknowledges that the code \u201cspeaks most specifically to the use of human beings in medical research.\u201d But it goes on to claim that the code \u201chas been viewed by bioethicists and U.S. courts as the basis for the right to informed consent to medical procedures carrying a risk of injury or death.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s not true.<\/p>\n The Nuremberg Code has \u201conly been used by courts in the human experimentation context,\u201d Annas told us. And the principle of informed consent in the regular doctor-patient relationship, outside of medical experimentation, doesn\u2019t come from the Nuremberg Code, he said. That developed separately.<\/p>\n The concept of informed consent in medical research grew largely out of unethical research projects conducted in the early 20th century, including the experiments during the Holocaust and the\u00a0syphilis study<\/a>\u00a0done on black men without their consent in Tuskegee, Alabama, according to a\u00a0paper<\/a>\u00a0from the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, which distinguishes between the idea of informed consent for medical research and regular treatment.<\/p>\n The concept of informed consent in the health care setting, however, \u201cdeveloped from the intentional tort of battery, which protects individuals from an unwanted physical touching of the body by others having neither express nor implied consent of the person touched,\u201d according to a\u00a0paper<\/a>\u00a0published in the Mayo Clinic\u2019s peer-reviewed journal.<\/p>\n In support of the bogus claim that the Nuremberg Code would apply to the use of vaccines, the National Vaccine Information Center\u2019s post includes out-of-context quotes from two bioethicists.<\/p>\n One of them,\u00a0Arthur Caplan<\/a>, a professor of bioethics at New York University, told us in an email that the use of a quote from his\u00a01992 article<\/a>\u00a0is \u201c[c]ompletely erroneous\u201d and is a \u201c[f]lat out Reflection of both ignorance of history and ethics.\u201d<\/p>\n It is \u201ca gross disservice to the victims of brutal Nazi experiments to distort my words for lame anti-science that will kill people if this bilge is taken seriously,\u201d Caplan said.<\/p>\n Jay Katz, the other professor whose work was cited by the National Vaccine Information Center,\u00a0died in 2008<\/a>. But his\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0was about the informed consent of human subjects in medical research. It had nothing to do with vaccines or informed consent among ordinary patients.<\/p>\n We asked the National Vaccine Information Center about the claims in its post, but it responded with the same information given on its website.<\/p>\n Despite the dubious claims it makes, the National Vaccine Information Center\u2019s post is still being shared on\u00a0social<\/a>\u00a0media<\/a>\u00a0and has been used to support other,\u00a0related<\/a>\u00a0falsehoods<\/a>\u00a0about vaccines over the years.<\/p>\n As we\u2019ve explained, the\u00a0Nuremberg Code<\/a>\u00a0says nothing about the use of already tested and authorized\u00a0medicine or prevention, like vaccines. The full text is below:<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.<\/p>\n This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.<\/p>\n The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.<\/p>\n 2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.<\/p>\n 10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Update, May 17: After this story was written, the Food and Drug Administration gave emergency use authorization to three COVID-19 vaccines \u2013 a review process that is typically less stringent than full licensure. We changed the wording in this story to refer to vaccines as authorized, not approved, to avoid confusion. We thank the reader who brought this to our attention.<\/em><\/p>\n Editor\u2019s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations\u00a0<\/i>working with Facebook<\/i><\/a>\u00a0to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n Fichera, Angelo. \u201cNo Evidence That Flu Shot Increases Risk of COVID-19<\/a>.\u201d FactCheck.org. 27 Apr 2020.<\/p>\n Hale Spencer, Saranac. \u201cConspiracy Theory Misinterprets Goals of Gates Foundation<\/a>.\u201d FactCheck.org. 14 Apr 2020.<\/p>\n Fichera, Angelo. \u201cFalse Claim of Deadly Coronavirus Vaccine Trial in Africa<\/a>.\u201d FactCheck.org. 10 Apr 2020.<\/p>\n Nuremberg Code<\/a>. Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School. Accessed 4 Jun 2020.<\/p>\n United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. \u201cThe Doctors Trial: The Medical Case of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings<\/a>.\u201d Accessed 4 Jun 2020.<\/p>\n Moreno, Jonathan. Medical ethics professor, University of Pennsylvania. Email exchange with FactCheck.org. 3 Jun 2020.<\/p>\n Annas, George. Director, Center for Health Law, Ethics & Human Rights at Boston University School of Public Health. Telephone interview and email exchange with FactCheck.org. 4 Jun 2020.<\/p>\n Skinner, Erik. \u201cState Vaccination Policies: Requirements and Exemptions for Entering School<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0National Conference of State Legislatures. Dec 2017.<\/p>\n NVICstandup. \u201cBarbara Loe Fisher and Neil Halsey M D debate<\/a>.\u201d YouTube. Posted 28 Jan 2009.<\/p>\n Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.\u00a0Informed Consent Background<\/a>. 30 Sep 2016.<\/p>\n Paterick, Timothy, et al. \u201d\u00a0Medical Informed Consent: General Considerations for Physicians<\/a>.\u201d Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Mar 2008.<\/p>\n Caplan, Arthur. Bioethics professor, New York University. Email exchange with FactCheck.org. 4 Jun 2020.<\/p>\n