Essay: The Dachau Hypothermia experiments

The Dachau Hypothermia Experiments consisted of a series of experiments where data was unethically collected during the second world war. The immersion-hypothermia project, one of the most recognized experiments from this period, was conducted at the Dachau concentration camp between August 1942 and May 1943 (Berger 1990). The project sought to find the most effective method of treatment for victims of immersion hypothermia – mostly focusing on the crew members of the German air force who were exposed to the cold waters of the North Sea (Berger 1990). Male civilian prisoners of various religions and nationalities, including Russian prisoners of war, were the primary subjects. There were reports that the individuals were usually forced to participate in the experiments, but some “volunteered” in response to promises, rarely fulfilled, of release from the camp of commutation of the death sentence (Berger 1990).
The experiments consisted of immersing the subjects into tanks of ice cold water. Some subjects were anesthetized before being immersed into the cold water, some were conscious, some dressed and some were even naked. Following immersion, the subjects were exposed to several different methods of rewarming (Berger 1990). Results included responses of body temperatures, clinical manifestations, observance of some selected biochemical and physiologic measurements and performance of autopsies as well (Berger 1990). The way these results are used however, is a controversial subject till this day. Some believe that the way these results were achieved is highly unethical, some believe we can benefit from it, while others believe that it is just simply unreliable.
On one side, Arnold Relman stated that the Nazi Experiments “are such a gross violation of human standards that are not to be trusted at all” (Berger 1990). The Dachau Hypothermia experiments consisted of harmful unethical procedures that can be easily harmful to any individual. Postwar testimony reports show that about 360 to 400 experiments were conducted while there were only 280 to 300 victims. This indicates that some individuals underwent more than a single exposure (Berger 1990). If that’s not enough, the victims, including nude victims, were placed into baths with temperatures ranging between 2 and 12 C! For one, this is highly unethical, considering the fact that this is extremely cold, but also considering the principles of bioethics. The principle of non-maleficence focuses on the fact that any procedure being done should not harm any patient involved or others in society (Aksoy & Elmai 2002). It can be considered negligence due to the careless and unreasonable risk of harm bestowed upon the subjects. However, the focus of the experiments were to help aid victims of immersion hypothermia and those shot down into the cold waters of the North Sea (Berger 1990). The intent wasn’t to find some pleasure in harming victims, but to help find and provide some sort of aid to those suffering from hypothermia. Ironically, we can apply this information to the principle of beneficence. The principle of beneficence states that any procedure provided should be done with the intent of doing good for the individual or others (Aksoy & Elmai 2002).
While there are individuals who find this data unethical and inhumane, there are also individuals who believe that we can benefit from this information. In fact, research from these experiments have been widely referred to in the United States, Canada and Great Britain (Berger 1990). Robert Pozos, a physiologist who specializes in hypothermia, appreciated the free use of the results, believing that they can advance research on hypothermia while also saving lives. He knew that the way the results were achieved was unethical, but believed that the information could express confidence in the scientific integrity of the study and also provide support and give that extra push on current treatment on hypothermia victims (Berger 1990). Additionally, according to several investigators, the study results provide important information on lethal temperatures and specific reactions to cooling and methods of rewarming (Berger 1990). This gave everyone the impression that although the way these experiments were conducted is highly unethical, the project can represent good science. These procedures done were with great intent to help provide some sort of treatment. Although many variables were in considered and many defects may have presented themselves, nothing can be done to change the past. There is no way to turn back time and prevent this project from being conducted, therefore, instead of dwelling on the past and wasting time on thinking about how unethical this was, the medical research field should take the time to understand the data and find a way to use it in any way that can benefit society worldwide.
Lastly, some individuals, like Leo Alexander, believed the information was credible, but later realized that results were not reliable. Leo Alexander is a psychiatrist and consultant to the American Chief of Counsel for War Crimes who believed that the data could help advance research, but later changed his position and concluded that the results were not dependable (Berger 1990). The experimental design of the project was very vague, especially considering the fact that many variables weren’t accounted for. It was incomplete and reflected a disorganized approach (Berger 1990). Age. nutritional reports and even clinical conditions of the subjects weren’t accounted for, therefore showing that the data provided by these experiments is highly unreliable since it can be influenced by many other factors. This in fact can push us as a society to think in a certain way, of course not in a positive way, about the conductors of this experiment. If their intent was to help provide some aid and provide some information that can help advance the medical research field, then they should’ve in fact taken into account all the variables possible in a scientific procedure to get the most accurate data. In fact, blood pressure wasn’t even measured, but instead only “heart sounds” and electrocardiography was only taken into account (Berger 1990). Some reports indicated that whenever possible, some assistants and victims even altered temperature readings and changed the timing of blood sampling in the attempt to save lives (Berger 1990). How can the medical research field today use such information if the methods and procedures taken to complete this project were highly defective and careless? Using such data can provide false information, leading to false accusations, which can lead to “false treatments” and later even death? This, on the contrary, is not good science as previously said Robert Pozos, but is in fact, bad science.
The Dachau Hypothermia Experiments can either be highly informational and help us reach new conclusions in the medical research field or can be highly unethical and disgusting and not used at all to advance our research. The idea of using these results is highly debatable and therefore can vary in positions. If good can come to the world by using this data, then it can be surely justified. But instead of just focusing on the data provided by this experiment, a moment should be taken to focus on the subjects and what consequences could have been bestowed upon them. First and foremost, nothing can be done to change how these experiments were conducted, therefore, no further harm can be done to those who participated in this project, even if some were involuntary. But how about focusing on the families of the victims? Unless there was some sort of approval with the way this project was conducted, families of the deceased may not feel comfortable with the way the data is being used (Gillam 2018). Do they approve of it? Does it bring them some sort of discomfort? We, as a society, are very selfish at times. In fact, we just use this data to find ways to benefit ourselves, but never take the time to pay mind to those involve and those in disbelief. Additionally, it can also motivate other doctors to conduct their own unethical experiments in hopes of finding new treatments. Using the data from Nazi experiments will just downplay the unethical procedures and therefore show that it is ok to cause suffering and harm to subjects in hopes of benefitting ourselves. This of course is a moral problem that is problematic in itself.
In conclusion, the Dachau Hypothermia experiments were a group of experiments that caused suffering and harm to subjects with the intent of doing good. The idea of using this data to advance our medical field is highly debated on and therefore, is a very controversial subject. The methods and procedures conducted for this experiment is highly defective and therefore, has many blanks. With reference to the scientific procedure, this of course can provide misinterpreted and false information that will not advance our research field, but instead can bring it to a decline. So how will we ever decide if the outcomes from this experiment will benefit us or bring us consequences? Firstly, we can either put society first, realize that nothing can be done for the victims of the project now, and therefore use the data to find ways that can benefit us medically now and in the future. Secondly, we can either stop being selfish and ignorant and put the victims first. We can take the time to think about how much harm and pain was caused, how much disbelief this information can bring to the families of the deceased and how unethical it is to use this data for our own benefit. Lastly, instead we can focus on the scientific aspect of it all, and focus on how unorganized and incomplete the methods and procedures of the project was, and therefore conclude that the information provided can be misinterpreted and falsely provided. In light of this, the idea of using this data can vary widely throughout society and therefore, will remain a controversial subject.