Jugendamtsterror und Familienrechtsverbrechen

Martin MITCHELL

.
Ärzte denken oftmals / Ärzte dachten oftmals: „An Untermenschen darf man experiementieren.“ und „Sie sind ja keine vollwertigen Menschen.“ – Und „Heimkinder“ / „Anstaltsinsassen“ / „Behinderte“ / „Psychiatriepatienten“ / „Alte“ und „Demente“ wurden / werden ja von vielen als „Untermenschen“ und „nicht“ als „vollwertig“ angesehen, sondern als „Menschenmaterial“ „mit dem man machen konnte was man wollte“ / „mit dem man machen kann was man will“.

Zitat:

.
[ inoffizielle Übersetzung des Titels ins Deutsche:
Im Namen der Menschlichkeit
Nazi-Doktoren und Menschenversuche
in deutschen Konzentrationslagern, 1939-1945

Diese, bzw. die folgende Master-These in Historie existiert aber leider nur Englisch: ]

In the Name of Humanity
Nazi Doctors and
Human Experiments
in German Concentration Camps, 1939-1945

Daan de Leeuw
University of Amsterdam, Department of History
Master’s Thesis in History

[ QUELLE @ www.niod.nl/sites/niod.nl/files/Scriptie%20Daan%20de%20Leeuw%20-%20In%20the%20Name%20of%20Humanity.pdf ( TOTAL DIGITAL LENGTH: 160 PAGES ----- TOTAL LENGTH ON PAPER: 158 PAGES ) ( DIGITALE LÄNGE INSGESAMT: 160 SEITEN ----- LÄNGE INSGESAMT WENN AUF PAPIER GEDRUCKT: 158 SEITEN )

[ DIGITAL PAGE 128: ----- PRINTED ON PAPER, PAGE 126: ]
[ DIGITALE SEITE 128: ----- AUF PAPIER GEDRUCKT, SEITE 126: ]
The downfall of the Third Reich made the Nazi doctors realise that they would be held accountable for their crimes, because all of them tried to avoid prosecution. This also indicates that they knew they had committed crimes by conventional medical ethics and morality. They could commit their crimes because of the historical context. National Socialism removed barriers that existed in previous years.653 The Nazi doctors knew they crossed an ethical and legal boundary by using prisoners as guinea pigs. However, they did not oppose this because in their eyes the experiments were legitimate. Just as De Mildt has argued for the perpetrators of the T4 program, the Nazi doctors did not guide themselves by inner convictions, but by ‘pursuit and protection of their own petty career interests’, ‘job-related considerations’, and ‘career prospects’.654 They benefitted from their participation in the National Socialist medical crimes as long as the Third Reich lasted.

[ DIGITAL PAGE 134: ----- PRINTED ON PAPER, PAGE 132: ]
[ DIGITALE SEITE 134: ----- AUF PAPIER GEDRUCKT, SEITE 132: ]
The post-war exoneration of the Befehlsnotstand does not stand. Obviously, it never did because doctors could detach themselves from the experiments. Never was a physician severely punished for refusal to execute an experiment. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the regime would have asked people who might have objected in the first place. Even the physicians who were ordered or assigned to execute the experiments, realised the unique opportunity offered to them that could contribute to their scientific career.

Whether they were assigned, ordered, recruited, or executed the experiments from their own initiative, they were aware of the latitude offered to them. Once on the site, they commanded the power over life and death, and they demanded more prisoners and came up with new research proposals. The younger doctors used the experiments to receive a Habilitation or to establish themselves in the academic world. The older doctors, such as Clauberg, Kremer, Schilling, and Værnet hoped for a scientific breakthrough.

After the war, the Nazi doctors defended their actions by exonerating arguments. However, as the prosecutors and judges argued, none of these arguments legitimised the involuntary use of prisoners. Except for Fischer, none of the Nazi doctors felt guilty for their crimes. They believed that they had done what was right. Their normative reference frame based on National Socialism explains their mind-set and this perspective. The Nazi doctors had no ethical and moral constraints to executing the human experiments because they deemed the lives of the research subjects as inferior and useless. In their eyes, pre-war or even pre-1933 ethics were abrogated at the time when the survival of the nation was at stake. It is hard to determine the application and support for the Hippocratic Oath within German medicine before the war. Nevertheless, it is clear that Nazism overruled the oath. Consequently, the Nazi doctors cannot be characterised as “ordinary men” because their [ DIGITAL PAGE 135: ----- PRINTED ON PAPER, PAGE 133: ] [ DIGITALE SEITE 135: ----- AUF PAPIER GEDRUCKT, SEITE 133: ] normative reference frame was based on National Socialism. Therefore, they had no ethical and moral constraints to deliberately harming and killing people. However, they were ordinary men in the sense that their opportunistic motives guided them.

[ DIGITAL PAGE 136: ----- PRINTED ON PAPER, PAGE 134: ]
[ DIGITALE SEITE 136: ----- AUF PAPIER GEDRUCKT, SEITE 134: ]
Thus, the state only had to allow human experimentation to attract the attention of doctors. The state provided the necessary resources and the doctors willingly seized the opportunity. In seizing this opportunity, they did not have any ethical and moral constraints whatsoever. My first finding exculpates the Nazi doctors because overall the experiments had a top-down structure. My second finding inculpates them because they did not have any ethical and moral constraints regarding the execution of the human experiments and the research subjects.
.

#compensationnow (MM - Heimopfer-WEST)
.