It is utterly astounding to me how well written this piece is. Subject matter as weighty as Nuremburg demands gravitas, clarity of thought and simplicity of expression. That you have brought.
Well, it's not entirely clear what part is confusing, but help us here. Are any of these less ambiguous?
"For civilized post-WWII medicine, the accepted standard of ethical experimentation is animal vivisection."
"For civilized post-WWII medicine, the de facto standard of ethical experimentation is animal vivisection."
"For 'civilized' post-WWII medicine, the standard of ethical experimentation is animal vivisection."
What we mean to say here, plainly, is that medical ethics, in embracing the Nuremberg code, defaults to performing these experiments on animals; this is considered ethical, although we are questioning this.
"Civilized" means, essentially, living in cities and towns.
"Ethics" are the body of principles that are the operational premise of an institution. Describing an ethical standard is not the same as considering that standard to be ethical. That's the whole point, actually, that this ethical standard is hypocritical.
"Vivisection" is experimenting on animals, specifically, cutting them up to examine the results of the experiment. That's how drugs are approved, and virtually the entire biomedical field practices this.
The problem seems to be that you take these connotations you mention seriously. There is irony intended.
"Using the word "ethical" in reference to any medical practices is not only contradiction, it is pure insulting of all those who were and are the victims of this cult."
With all respect, that makes no sense whatsoever. How is one to discuss corrupt ethical principles without describing them as such? The Nuremberg Code is a document of medical ethics. That's the subject of the essay. You should write an essay of your own and choose the words that express this idea in a way which pleases your sensibility.
It is utterly astounding to me how well written this piece is. Subject matter as weighty as Nuremburg demands gravitas, clarity of thought and simplicity of expression. That you have brought.
Please keep bringing it.
Very much appreciate your insight and statement.
Well done! Beautiful piece.
Excellent!
Well, it's not entirely clear what part is confusing, but help us here. Are any of these less ambiguous?
"For civilized post-WWII medicine, the accepted standard of ethical experimentation is animal vivisection."
"For civilized post-WWII medicine, the de facto standard of ethical experimentation is animal vivisection."
"For 'civilized' post-WWII medicine, the standard of ethical experimentation is animal vivisection."
What we mean to say here, plainly, is that medical ethics, in embracing the Nuremberg code, defaults to performing these experiments on animals; this is considered ethical, although we are questioning this.
Does that make it make sense?
"Civilized" means, essentially, living in cities and towns.
"Ethics" are the body of principles that are the operational premise of an institution. Describing an ethical standard is not the same as considering that standard to be ethical. That's the whole point, actually, that this ethical standard is hypocritical.
"Vivisection" is experimenting on animals, specifically, cutting them up to examine the results of the experiment. That's how drugs are approved, and virtually the entire biomedical field practices this.
The problem seems to be that you take these connotations you mention seriously. There is irony intended.
"Using the word "ethical" in reference to any medical practices is not only contradiction, it is pure insulting of all those who were and are the victims of this cult."
With all respect, that makes no sense whatsoever. How is one to discuss corrupt ethical principles without describing them as such? The Nuremberg Code is a document of medical ethics. That's the subject of the essay. You should write an essay of your own and choose the words that express this idea in a way which pleases your sensibility.
Glad were able to communicate about this.