Hey guys its been awhile, but our discussion towards the end of class today peaked my curiousity. So as a continuation of that discussion I'd like to pose the question of whether or not you all believe we should use the anatomical drawings of Pernkof (I believe it was him if I'm not mistaken?). I find myself very much on the fence when it comes to this issue. Although I do agree with Molly and Taylor about making a positive out of a terrible event, I can't help but feel that by allowing the book to be used we would in a sense be condoning nazi war crimes. I would also pose the question of how much these drawings would help doctors and other members of the medical field if it were legal. I feel that if this book were extremely helpful and could save lives that it might be worth using, but if not it might not be. The only reason I feel this way is that by saving lives we can in a sense justify using the book. Still, there's also the larger issue of how Americans would be viewed by the world if we were to use a book published by a nazi german scientists/murderer. I'd like to know what all of your thoughts are on this issue? Should we use the book, or should we let it be, and continue to use Grey's Anatomy which as far as I know has not mislead physicians in any way? Your thoughts?
(Kevin Trainer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
As Mr. Lazarow mentioned in class today, it won't ever be an issue again because of the scientific progress that has been made in the last sixty years, but it is still a question worth posing, even if only theoretically. Another thing Mr. Lazarow mentioned is that these experiments/torture were performed on not-so-healthy patients. The argument in favor of using these drawings is that they are more accurate and give doctors a better picture of the way things are supposed to look. I began to question the validity of this argument, though, upon the realization that these were not healthy patients. Would the accuracy of these drawings be compromised by the fact that the subjects were not healthy? Because, I would think, a healthy body looks different than an unhealthy body, and if a doctor were using "Pernkof's Anatomy" he would be basing his image of what a body is supposed to look like on something does not look the way it is supposed to. I hope this makes sense. Any thoughts?
Emily T.
I agree that doctors using Pernkof's Anatomy would still not have a very accurate depiction of the human body because the subjects were obviously not in a healthy physical state. Not only were prisoners of concentration camps starved sometimes to the point of death, but they also typically got diseases like scabies and typhus. Therefore, in some situations drawings of a cadaver would be more accurate than of a seriously ill person.
Also, we need to take into consideration that the families of the people who were tortured for the creation of Pernkof's Anatomy were extremely opposed to the publishing of the book. I am sure that if we put ourselves in the position of one of these family members and try to imagine how upsetting it would be to watch someone get positive recognition for torturing a parent, sibling, or friend, we would all rethink our current opinions on this matter.
(Paige Schlesinger)
I find Pernkopf's Anatomy to be repulsive. The odd part of my argument, though, is that...I don't really have one. Something inside of me just tells me that the whole ordeal should be buried away in hopes of discouraging future madmen/women from doing the same. If I were a family member of one of the victims, I'd probably view those in favor of the sketches to be heinous, unethical, and downright evil.
We now have equipment that allows us to look right into the bodies of healthy, living human beings. Therefore, I see no need for the gruesome book, and would quite possibly burn it if given the chance. Humans never learn, and by accepting this work, we are indeed opening the door for people to attempt to "play God" in the future.
(Sam Maliha)
Now, obviously with the advanced technology, we do not have to worry about using Pernkopf's anatomy any more because we can look at live organs without performing unethical research. However, before this new scientific way of observing human organs was available, a lot of doctor and scientists probably studied Pernkopf's anatomy. This idea led me to think that much of current medical knowledge is probably acheived using some help from Pernkopf's anatomy. If Perkopf's research is considered to be unethical and thus becomes illegal to use, should we go back and delete the progress we have made so far?
I googled Pernkopf's anatomy and found out that some volumes of his work are available at amazon.com. Does this strike anyone as shocking? The prices ranged from $400 to $800. I thought it was very interesting to see that getting a copy of Pernkopf's book is easier than I thought it would be.
Jennifer Park
I also cannot help but feel that allowing the wide publication and use of Pernkof's Anatomy would be an act which condones Pernkof's heinous crimes. How could one possibly consider using the book, knowing all too well that the "progress" which results from using it essentially is obtained only at the expense of innocent lives lost during the Holocaust? I understand the argument that you have to "break a few eggs if you want to make an omelet," but I personally would not be able to break them myself. Perhaps there are other cooks who WOULD be willing to do so, but I am simply not one of them. Life will still continue without the omelet, and therefore, I say we leave the eggs intact. Of course, this is all a matter of personal opinion, though.
(Janet Lee)
Someone earlier mentioned that because the bodies are not healthy, they are not going to give the most accurate drawings. Therefore, I believe that if the medical community used Pernkof's anatomy I feel that it is definitely condoning this practice. There are further problems created by this because someone may look at this and decide to perform experiments on healthy bodies to make an even more accurate anatomy.
Any thoughts?
(Arvind Kalidindi)
I disagree and say that we should break the eggs and make the omelet. While I'm not saying that we should completely condone and commend the complete abandonment of the morals of society, I'm not totally against loosening some. To the conservatives in the crowd, that might seem like a slippery slope, but it isn't.
Humans are not really receptive to change. When not provoked, they tend to remain stagnant. As time progresses, this stagnance becomes regression. While I'm not saying that Pernkof's research was necessarily the be all and end all solution to this tendency, it is an example of what must be done, just one a really extreme degree.
Science is all about defying human nature and purposely triggering change and progress. The eggs are cracked when science headbutts with human nature. Both should be maintained yet restricted. Science is restricted by morals while human nature is restricted by science. It's a cycle that has been working for a while, so why stop now?
Galileo's research used corpses exhumed from their graves. He was accused of blasphemy by his contemporaries and then lauded as a genius later. While I admit that there is a certain danger in that, I also believe that some societal morals must be sacrificed to make the omelet. At the same time, we should not crack all of our eggs, because then we wouldn't have anything left and be consumed by our own greed, wouldn't we?
Well, ideally, we could use Pernkopf's works just this one time and then never venture into morally ambiguous territory ever again. But the reality is that by allowing the usage of such a morally gray work, we open the door to many other unsavory and questionable techniques.
I can see Grace's point that we shouldn't let our morals control our science. But we shouldn't let our science control our morals either. Even though science has often expanded our morality in the past (often at the expense of religion), it does seem to be going a bit too far to profit from the deaths of innocent Holocaust victims. True, one could argue that we let their sacrifices go in vain if we neglect to use Pernkopf's discoveries, but otherwise the likelihood of such an incident occurring again increases.
We're fortunate in this case that Pernkopf's works aren't that scientifically useful anyway. But we must be careful the next time this question arises.
-Eric W
Post a Comment