A brief introduction

One topic mentioned in the ethics workshop was egg donation. This is the practice of women donating their eggs either for IVF treatments or for scientific research. There is great variation in the payment of women in different cultures, sparking debate over how donors should be compensated.

How does the process work?

The process of egg collection is lengthy, taking two to three months. Genetic screening is also required before the egg collection occurs which follows a few key steps. 

Firstly, hormone treatment occurs on day two of the cycle. This is done via daily FSH injections to boost the number of follicles formed. Secondly, after a few days of FSH injections antagonist injections occur to supress natural hormone production of the cycle. At this stage blood tests and scans are needed to check for responses to the medication. Further antagonist injections then help the eggs mature. Finally, to collect the eggs from the body pain relief via sedation or general anaesthetic may also be required. The collected eggs are then used fresh or are frozen for later use.

The UK law of egg donation

In the UK it is illegal to profit from this practice however compensation of £985 per cycle (one complete round of treatment) is allowed.  This compensation is strictly processed based, not for actual donation and more can also be claimed to cover fees for expenses such as travel, accommodation and childcare.

Egg donation in the US

In the US the ASRM (American Society for Reproductive Medicine) requirements must be met, and it is possible to donate anonymously which is different to the UK law.

The cost of fresh egg donation ranges from $35, 000 to $50, 000 and is not always limited to processed based compensation, differing to UK law.

Ethical arguments in favour of payment

Egg donation is time consuming due to the duration travel and process. Daily injections also make it extremely inconvenient. There is also a risk to the health of the donor including risks associated with medication such as general anaesthetic and there is potential risk to life due to OHSS and side effects.

Counselling is also legally required, demonstrating the large mental health impact which can be long lasting and not fairly compensated for as mental health affects every aspect of life.

These reasons describe how it could be argued that there is not enough compensation for the risk taken by the donors.

Additionally, the US system assigns great value to the donated eggs which is reflected by the price women are paid for their eggs.

Ethical problems with payment for Egg donation

Major problems associated with paying for egg donation include encouragement to undergo a complicated and painful procedure for those that more urgently need money. A monetary incentive and other potential pressures could also introduce ethical issues about true consent which can be eliminated if the process is voluntary and unpaid.

Overall conclusions

It is a difficult topic with no complete solution. The current UK system allowing some compensation to cover the actual cost of donation feels the most appropriate to me as it offers a middle ground where the women are somewhat looked after but no moral compromises are made. However, a slight increase in the maximum compensation limit could better support the women.

Sources:

1. Donating your eggs | HFEA
2. Egg Donor Laws by States – A Comprehensive Guide
3. Egg donor compensation is to triple under new HFEA guidelines – BBC News
4. How Much Can You Get Paid for Donating Eggs? – GoodRx

Organs you can hold in your hands’ sound like the work of science fiction or the canopic jars of the Egyptian pharaohs. But this is not too far from the present with organs tissue being made on chips (and no, not the salt and vinegar kind). These have been hailed by many as the future of drug development  and an alternative to animal testing. I first heard about organs-on-chips about 5 years ago, they were mentioned as a technology of the future. But while looking into drug research with stem cells I rediscovered these chips and wanted to explore how they are used and what the next 5 years could look like.

What are organs on chips (OoC)?

Simply put they are microchips that are designed to mimic human organs. These contain living cells from different organs like the brain, bones, heart and lungs. They were originally theorised by Michael Shuler who envisioned connecting these to make a whole ‘body on a chip’.

Applications- Drug Development

Currently drug development takes an average of £1.22 billion, 13.5 years and 92% of drugs fail the strict regulations. This staggeringly high failure rate is due to testing on animal (generally mice) before humans. Animal testing unreliably predict if drugs will work due to genetic and immune differences to humans. The current inaccurate, expensive, and lengthy process for drugs development demands a new approach.

OoC’s could Refine testing by Reducing and Replacing the use of animal models. These 3R’s are part of the European Union’s guidelines on ethical animal testing. If regulatory authorities allow the use of OoC’s It would reduce public objections to testing drugs and cosmetics on animals. However, a major drawback of organ-on-a-chip technology is that it only mimics single organs. This means it can’t show how drugs are processed in interacting organs, like the stomach, before reaching their target, which could lead to inaccurate results.

Pros and cons

The future: Patient-on-a-chip

Researchers are currently striving to develop body-on-chip technology. These would connect existing chips together to form a body circuit, that could mimic a drug’s pathway through the body.

I can imagine in the future:

Going to your GP with high blood pressure and they suggest several medications - luckily, they are printing your body chip now- with your stem cells, from your frozen umbilical cord stored when you were born. Now the doctor can test each treatment in your body chip and within a couple of hours your prescription is ready for you. It’s for the drug which will work the best for you with the fewest side effects.

Although this may sound a but far fetched, personalised medicine is a key focus in the NHS's strategy to improve outcomes. These have the potential to save millions of lives, but rely on a cell source. Cells from biopsies are generally uncontentious as there are thorough consent procedures and they involve adult cells. To enable personalised body chips, mesenchymal stem cells would be ideal. However this is accompanied by more legal, religious, and social scrutiny. For drug companies to change their historic means of testing there needs to be a regulatory pathway to integrate OoC’s into the clinical trial stages.

Imagine a world where organ transplant waiting lists no longer exist. Where a failing heart, kidney or liver doesn’t lead to a possible death sentence and can be fixed with a simple immediate replacement. According to the World Health Organisation, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for almost 15% of all deaths. For patients suffering from end-stage cardiovascular disease, often heart transplantation is the only available option. However, the demand for heart transplants is outweighed by the number of healthy hearts available. 

 Recent and Ongoing Developments in Bio-printing :

There have been multiple breakthroughs and developments recently that all contribute towards bringing us closer to functional bio-printed hearts.

• Bio-inks: Scientists have been developing advanced bio-inks that better mimic the properties of human heart tissues. Bio-inks are printable materials that can incorporate live cells in 3D and bioactive molecules for bioprinting, allowing for precise 3D placement of cells or molecules within the construct.

• Scaffolding for Blood Vessels: One of the biggest hurdles is replicating the complex vascular system of the heart. Without a proper network of blood vessels, bioprinted hearts would fail due to a lack of oxygen and nutrients. Researchers are making progress in engineering capillaries and larger vessels to support full organ function. Earlier in 2019, a team of scientists created 3D printed vascular networks that mimic the body’s nature passageways for blood, air, lymph, and other vital fluids. This innovation has cleared a major hurdle in printing functional human tissue and opened the pathway to complete 3D printing heart replacement organs.

• Miniature 3D-Printed Hearts: In 2019, researchers at Tel Aviv University successfully printed a tiny heart using human cells, complete with chambers and blood vessels. Although it lacked full functionality, this marked an essential step toward printing life-sized, beating hearts.

• Electrophysiological Control: Bioprinted heart tissue needs to be able to conduct electrical signals properly to enable synchronised contractions. Scientists are experimenting with specialised biomaterials that improve electrical conductivity within printed tissues, enhancing their ability to beat in a coordinated manner.

However, despite all these developments, there are several major obstacles that stand in the way of Bio-printed hearts being transplanted in the near future.

• Functionality & Longevity: Even though scientists have printed heart tissues, ensuring that these tissues can beat synchronously and sustain long-term function remains a challenge. Hearts must endure years of stress without degradation.
• Scalability & Precision: Printing a full-sized, fully functional heart that can integrate seamlessly with the human body requires extreme precision, biomimicry, and technological advancements beyond what we currently possess.
• Vascularisation & Nutrient Delivery: A fully printed heart needs an intricate vascular system that not only delivers oxygen and nutrients but also removes waste efficiently.
• Regulatory Approval: Like any new medical technology, bioprinted hearts must undergo extensive clinical trials to ensure safety and efficacy before becoming a standard treatment option. Ethical considerations and regulatory hurdles could slow down widespread implementation.

When can we expect the first Bio-printed heart transplant?

Experts predict that within the next 10-20 years, we may see the first clinical trials of bioprinted heart transplants. Initially, printed heart tissues might be used to repair damaged hearts, replace sections of heart muscle, or develop more realistic models for drug testing rather than replacing entire organs. Full organ transplants may take much longer.

While we’re not quite there yet, each scientific breakthrough brings us closer to a future where a patient in need of a heart transplant won’t have to wait—they can have one printed just for them.

References :

1. Freeman, D. (2019). Israeli scientists create world’s first 3D-printed heart using human cells. [online] NBC News. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/israeli-scientists-create-world-s-first-3d-printed-heart-using-ncna996031.
2. ‌Jacobsen, B. (n.d.). We Now Have 3D-Printed Human Hearts. [online] Future Proof. Available at: https://www.futuresplatform.com/blog/3d-printed-human-hearts.

They tested the lifting capabilities of different species of spider necrobotic grippers and found wolf spiders could lift objects to 130% of their body weight. However, the larger the spider species, the smaller the gripping force relative to body weight.

Upon testing its lifespan functionality, researchers cyclically repeated a series of actions and found it could actuate 700 to 1000 times before cracks formed on the membrane of the leg joints due to dehydration. These degraded joints lead to loss of functionality requiring replacement.

Further description and demonstration of the system are shown in the video below:

Advantages

• Sustainability and biodegradability – as these are formed from dead biological structures they are sustainable and decompose easily.
• Fast fabrication and low cost – the time to make a spider gripper can be done in under 30 minutes. These provide an alternative to small mechanical grippers which are costly, complex and difficult to manufacture.
• Ideal for intricate tasks – necrobotic systems can grip irregularly shaped objects that are larger and heavier than itself, all while maintaining a delicate touch. One potential application is in microelectronics, where these systems could be used for simple pick-and-place actions, handling fragile components with precision.

Disadvantages

• Necrobotic systems inevitably degrade over time. The joints typically last up to 1,000 cycles, while the tissues, without preservation, begin to degrade after about a week.
• Greater chance of failure when compared to mechanical systems.
• Organic inconsistencies – not all spiders are made the same so the gripping force can vary.
• Ethical concerns surrounding necrobotics are significant. While many, find the concept intriguing, it can also feel disturbing or disrespectful to use deceased bodies for robotic purposes. As Gaurav Dhiman asks, “Does necrobotics violate the dignity and rights of deceased organisms?”

Conclusion

For better or worse, spiders hold the most potential in necrobotics. Fabricating hydraulics, muscles, and joints on such a small scale can be very challenging, if not impossible. Spiders, however, naturally possess these mechanisms, making them ideal for creating eco-friendly, biodegradable robotic systems. However, with such technology comes ethical concerns: Where do we draw the line between technology and nature? Is it ethical to manipulate once-living creatures for human use, even after death? Some may argue that using naturally deceased organisms is no different from utilizing leather or bone in craftmanship. Others may see it as a step towards commodifying life itself reducing once-living beings into mere tools.

References:

• Necrobotics – Wikipedia
• The Future of Necrobotics – Future Disruptor
• Necrobotics: Dead Spiders Reincarnated as Robot Grippers – IEEE Spectrum
• https://youtu.be/1JOS6hMHIUM
• Necrobotics: Biotic Materials as Ready‐to‐Use Actuators – PMC
• peacock spider gifs | WiffleGif

“The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past they into the impossible.” – Arthur C. Clarke

---

Losing a limb or motor function can be life altering but what if you could regain control through the power of your own mind? Once a concept confined to science fiction, motor neuroprostheses and bionic limbs are now turning fiction into reality. By translating neural signals into motion, these mechanisms are helping individuals with amputations and paralysis regain independence.

As this technology advances it raises exciting possibilities but also ethical dilemmas. Who will have access to these life-changing innovations? Could such prostheses one day surpass biological limbs? In this blog, we’ll explore how neuroprostheses work, their real-life applications, and the challenges that may shape the future of such technology.

From Imitation to Innovation

Prosthetics have come a long way since their invention in 950 BC [1]. The first designs primarily focused on restoring appearance whilst, modern prosthetics aim to replicate movement and even restore lost sensations.

The video below provides a timeline of key advancements in prosthetic technology; showcasing how innovations have improved both functionality and quality of life for users.

What are Neuroprostheses?

At the present day, technology has advanced massively since the first prosthetic; leading to the development of neuroprostheses. Neuroprostheses are bio-hybrid devices that connect electrodes to human tissue to activate neurons or record their activity; in order to regain or amplify lost motor, sensory or cognitive functions [2].

Even after an individual loses a limb or the control of a limb the brain signals responsible for the control of the limb remain in tact. Neuroprostheses takes advantage of this; electrodes are implanted into the area of the brain related to the lost movement, and record electrical activity. These brain signals are then translated to control signals via processing through brain computer interfaces (BCI) or brain machine interfaces (BMI). These control signals can then be used to operate external devices such as robotic arms or they can be used to stimulate the muscle directly to restore lost motor function [3].

Navigating the Ethics of Enhancing Humanity

As promising as neuroprosthetic technology is, it also rases concern to complex ethical dilemmas. How far should we go in enhancing human abilities? What are the consequences of merging biology with advanced technology? How accessible should these life-changing innovations be? These are just a few questions sparking debate as we push the boundaries of what’s possible with bionic limbs and neuroprosthetics. While the potential benefits may be undeniable, it’s important to consider any potential risks and moral implications of integrating technology into the human body.

One of the most pressing ethical concerns surrounding neuroprosthetics is their accessibility. For example, in a recent article about children receiving bionic arms as life-changing gifts, it’s highlighted that bionic arms can cost up to £180,000, making them unattainable for many families unless supported by generous donations. This raises an essential question: should life-changing technologies be available only to those who can afford them?

With cutting edge innovations being financially exclusive, we risk deepening existing inequalities within healthcare; leaving the most vulnerable without access to the help they need. As neuroprosthetics evolve, it’s crucial that we address how to make these life altering devices accessible to everyone, not just those with the means to pay. While the physical and emotional benefits for those who receive them are undeniable, the ethical dilemma of who can access these advancements remain a critical issue.

---

In conclusion, neuroprosthetics are a powerful example of pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. The future of neuroprosthetics relies not only on innovation but on making these life-changing technologies equitable and accessible.

References:

1. Admin U. UPMC HealthBeat. 2015 [cited 2025 Mar 11]. Timeline: Prosthetic Limbs Through the Years. Available from: https://share.upmc.com/2015/03/timeline-prosthetic-limbs-years/
2. Neuroprosthetics – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 11]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/neuroprosthetics
3. Gupta A, Vardalakis N, Wagner FB. Neuroprosthetics: from sensorimotor to cognitive disorders. Commun Biol. 2023 Jan 6;6(1):1–17.

Every year, the NHS performs almost 100,000 hernia related surgeries, with 75% of surgeries using a mesh. However during one of our prosthesis lectures, I was surprised to hear about hernia meshes being controversial. So why would such a popular procedure have a negative reputation?

What is a hernia?

What’s wrong with permanent meshes?

Although most of hernia surgeries go well, many people still experience complications. The most common problems with hernia surgeries are pain, adhesion of scar-like tissue, hernia recurrence, infection, bleeding, abnormal connections between organs and obstruction of the large or small intestine. Permanent hernia mesh surgeries have an additional risk of the mesh migrating to a different place, shrinkage of the mesh itself and risk of the mesh reacting with the body and being rejected. There have also been concerns that meshes can cut into tissue and nerves, causing difficulties with walking and every day life.

International guidelines estimate 1 in 10 people who had a mesh repair surgery will experience significant chronic pain. This means every year, roughly 10,000 people in the UK will suffer from chronic pain due to a surgery that should’ve improved their quality of life.

Benefits of hernia meshes.

Hernia recurrences are a major concern, especially with non-mesh surgeries. The use of a mesh, whether it’s permanent or absorbable, significantly reduces the chances of a hernia recurrence. The reduced likeliness of the hernia developing again is one of the main reasons a mesh is preferred, as each subsequent surgery for a hernia has higher chances of complications, such as more scar tissue forming. Using a hernia mesh also allows reduced surgery time and quicker recovery time compared to non-mesh surgeries.

Alternatives

An alternative to classic hernia meshes can be “hybrid” meshes, such as Ovitex made by TELA Bio. This mesh is made of different materials: the main structure is made of polypropylene, and sheep stomach is used to make an absorbable component that’s mainly collagen. Once the collagen is absorbed by the body, there is still a small part of the mesh that’s left behind to provide structural support, but reduces the amount of synthetic mesh present in the body. This has already been used in the ReBAR Technique (Reinforced Biologic Augmented Repair).

References

Lucian Panait (2021). Inguinal Hernia: To Mesh or Not to Mesh? – Minnesota Hernia Center. [online] Minnesota Hernia Center. Available at: https://mnhernia.com/inguinal-hernia-to-mesh-or-not-to-mesh/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2025].

Pawlak, M., Tulloh, B. and de Beaux, A. (2020). Current trends in hernia surgery in NHS England. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 102(1), pp.25–27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2019.0118

Health, C. for D. and R. (2023). Surgical Mesh Used for Hernia Repair. [online] FDA. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/implants-and-prosthetics/surgical-mesh-used-hernia-repair.

Collinson, A. (2020). Hernia mesh implants used ‘with no clinical evidence’. BBC News. [online] 15 Jan. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51024974.

As medicine becomes increasingly tailored to individual needs, the one-size-fits-all approach is fading into the past. Thanks to advancements in stem-cell technology and tissue engineering, doctors are developing personalised treatments, designed for each patient. Among these breakthroughs, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are pushing the boundaries of personalised medicine, offering therapies tailored to our unique genetic makeup. However, as this vision becomes a reality, critical questions emerge: how far can we take personalised medicine, and what hurdles stand in the way?

Stem cells in personalised medicine

Stem cells have a unique ability to self-renew and differentiate into various cells, making them invaluable in disease modelling and regenerative medicine. iPSCs, created by reprogramming adult cells to behave like embryonic stem cells (ESCs), offer a powerful tool in personalised medicine. As they are crafted from a patient’s own cells, iPSCs enable highly individualised therapies:

• Disease modelling: iPSCs allow researches to create patient-specific cell models to study diseases and test targeted treatments
• Personalised drug testing: scientists can predict how a patient will respond to specific drugs, minimising trial-and-error in prescribing medications
• Regenerative medicine: iPSCs can generate patient-specific tissues for transplants, reducing immune rejection and improving long-term success
• Gene editing: iPSCs can be genetically modified (e.g. CRISPR) to correct mutations, offering potential cures for genetic diseases

Advantages of iPSCs over past technologies:

iPSCs over embryonic stem cells

Unlike ESCs, iPSCs bypass the ethical concerns of destroying human embryos, making them a more widely accepted alternative, particularly in areas with stricter bioethical regulations. Since they are derived from the patient’s own cells, iPSCs are genetically identical enabling patient-specific disease modelling and reducing the risk of immune rejection – a major concern with ESCs.

iPSCs over animal models

iPSCs offer a more accurate representation of human disease, improving relevance and predictability of experimental outcomes, as physiological and genetic differences between species can give rise to misleading results in research. iPSCs also bypass ethical concerns in animal testing, allowing a more humane alternative approach to research and drug testing. Additionally, iPSCs rapidly proliferate in culture, allowing high-throughput screening that is difficult to achieve with animal models.

Balancing innovation and ethics

Whilst iPSCs evade the ethical dilemmas of past technologies, concerns remain:

• Privacy: iPSCs contain sensitive genetic data that could be misused
• Genetic manipulation: gene editing technologies may be exploited for enhancing traits rather than treating diseases
• Inequality: the high cost of iPSC therapies could make them accessible only to the wealthy, deepening health disparities

The first success story

In 2014, Japan conducted the first clinical study using iPSCs. Masayo Takahashi led a groundbreaking trial transplanting iPSC-derived retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells to treat age-related macular degeneration. Whilst promising, high costs and lengthy cultivation times posed challenges. Scientists overcame this by developing allogenic iPSCs from rare donors, making iPSC therapy more accessible. In 2017, five successful allogenic RPE transplants were performed by Kobe City Medical Centre and Osaka University [1].

Looking ahead

iPSCs offer unparalleled opportunities to redefine medicine, from regenerative therapies to truly personalised treatments. This marks a promising shift away from the traditional one-size-fits-all approach, paving the way for customised healthcare tailored to each individual. While challenges remain, continued research and innovation ensure that the future of personalised medicine is bright – and this is only the beginning!

[1] https://www.amed.go.jp/en/seika/fy2018-05.html

Organoids: what are they and how are they made?

Organoids are a three dimensional miniaturised version of an organ or tissue that are derived from stem cells.

Heart organoids look like the the picture on the left, and act and function like a heart does.

These heart organoids that have been engineered from stem cells can be used for a variety of research as well as have medical applications.

Heart organoids can be used for disease modelling, especially coronary heart disease, and can be used to see scenarios which include ventricular septal defects that can happen during maternity. They may also be used for regenerative medicine and tissue engineering, as they can be engineered to produce specific cardiac tissues, that can be used to treat medical issues; such as myocardial infarction and heart failure. The risk of heart failure in the USA has increased to 24% in 2024. This is expected to carry on increasing. At the moment heart failure is treated with either a pacemaker, heart surgery or medication. These measures only help prevent heart failure from worsening. Cardiac organoids can be used to restore the damage on the cardiac tissue as well as restore the damaged blood vessels. This is still in the preclinical stages of testing, however is very promising, but leads to the question of how and where will we get these stem cells that are required to form the organoids?

Stem cells are able to regenerate/differentiate into specialised cell types. There are multiple different types of stem cells, Multipotent stem cells, Pluripotent stem cells, embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells.

These all have different functions through the human life and are needed at different times throughout growth.

What is the difference between embryonal and induced pluripotent stem cells?

Embryonic stem cells are acquired from early stage embryos (blastocyst) and are able to differentiate in to any cell type within the body, they have no limitations. However, the use of embryonal stem cells leads to ethical concerns and debates. The testing and growing of embryos leads to multiple questions, when is an embryo considered alive? How long do can this embryo grow for before it becomes a cause for concern? What testing is allowed on the embryo?

I think these questions will always be open for debate, due to there being no definitive answer to any of these questions, so where do scientist draw the line? At the moment there is a 14 day rule, and after 14 days the embryos must be killed.

Should this be extended, reduced or kept the same?

The other type of stem cell that can be used to produce organoids are induced pluripotent stem cells. These are created by altering adult (somatic) stem cells by using genetic factors. The use of induced pluripotent stem cells eliminates the ethical debate that using embryonic stem cells creates.

This video explains how induced pluripotent stem cells are made using transcription factors.

Is stem cells the future of medicine? Will scientists eventually be able to grow organs and use them as transplants? Only time will tell.

References

Aleksandra Kostina, Volmert B, Aguirre A. Human heart organoids: current applications and future perspectives. European Heart Journal [Internet]. 2023 Dec 16;45(10). Available from: https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/45/10/751/7476619?login=true

Delivering cardiac organoids to help the heart to recover after a heart attack [Internet]. Musc.edu. 2025 [cited 2025 Mar 11]. Available from: https://web.musc.edu/about/news-center/2023/06/05/cardiac-organoid-delivery

Bozkurt B, Ahmad T, Alexander K, Baker WL, Bosak K, Breathett K, et al. HF STATS 2024: Heart Failure Epidemiology and Outcomes Statistics An Updated 2024 Report from the Heart Failure Society of America. Journal of Cardiac Failure [Internet]. 2024 Sep 1;31(1). Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107191642400232X?via%3Dihub

As I walked through the corridors of the Education wing of the hospital and entered into the anatomy lab, I was intrigued by the specimens laid out in front of me. The solemn aura in the room overcame me as we explored the cadavers before us. A sense of immense respect for the specimens occupied the room. I began to reflect on the journey and evolution of ethical medical research that led to the situation I was, at that exact moment, standing in.

The Nuremberg Trials

During World War II, many deadly experiments on thousands of prisoners were undertaken without their permission. These experiments were undertaken without consent, in inhumane conditions, and with concerning research standards.

Such experiments were conducted with intention to facilitate survival of military personnel, test drugs, and advance Nazi racial goals. These included, and were not limited to:

• High-altitude experiments  (to determine the maximum altitude from which damaged aircraft crews could parachute to safety)
• Freezing experiments (in order to find treatment to hypothermia)
• Testing antibodies for treatment of contagious diseases (malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever, infectious hepatitis)
• Sterilisation experiments on children
• Experimentation on child twins
• Disfiguration and torture

From these experiments it is clear that no moral or ethical guideline was followed, especially in consent to being utilised in such examinations as highlighted by the tests on children. It has been since stated that those that died were dissected and studied, and their surviving twins were killed and subjected to the same scrutiny. The expendable nature of the subjects in these experiments, combined with the inhumane conditions, led to what would be known as, the Nuremberg Trials.

 “Survivors of medical atrocities are able to confront history and point to the inadequacies of care and compensation”

-Paul Weindling

From 1945 to 1946, 23 physicians and scientists were prosecuted for mass murder in the form of euthanasia, and human experimentation in Nazi concentration camps. They were under trial for their willing participation in war crime and crimes against humanity, with it sparking ethical questions in the medical approach to the inhumane experiments on prisoners in the Auschwitz concentration camp. As a result, seven of the doctors were found guilty and sentenced to prison, and twelve sentenced to death. From this significant trial was formed the Nuremberg Code, a statement of ten points delimiting medical experiments on human subjects , shaping the future of medical ethics.

The Nuremberg Code

From these trials was formed the Nuremberg Code. Consisting of a ten point statement , this code’s purpose was to delimit permissible medical experiments on human subjects.

In summary..

In the half century after the trial, the code informed numerous international ethics statements.It did not however have established legal force. Due to this, some argue that it would be incorrect to credit it as the framework on which ethical codes have since been based.

My Thoughts…

In my opinion, the Nuremberg code serves as a landmark document on medical ethics from one of the most significant humanitarian crises in history. For this alone, I believe that these ten statements have significance in the evolution of medical ethics of human specimens, acting as the baseline for further ethic codes developed afterwards, such as Beauchamp and Childress’ Principles of Biomedical Ethics (1979), and Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations (2004).