The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Correspondence
PreviousPrevious
Volume 338:995-996 April 2, 1998 Number 14
NextNext

The Significance of the Nuremberg Code

Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
-Purchase this article

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-Related Article
 by Shuster, E.
To the Editor: In her review of the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial and its legacy (Nov. 13 issue),1 Dr. Shuster devotes considerable space to an attempt by the Nazi defendants to equate experiments on inmates of concentration camps with American research on state and federal prisoners during World War II. I give credit to Shuster for paying attention to this often-overlooked aspect of the proceedings, but I found her analysis to fall seriously short of the full story.

Shuster suggests that Andrew Ivy, the American Medical Association's expert consultant to the prosecutors, was called to rebut Werner Leibbrand's criticism of research . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References




HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.