How the Pernkopf controversy facilitated a historical and ethical analysis of the anatomical sciences in Austria and Germany: A recommendation for the continued use of the Pernkopf atlas

All anatomical departments of German universities used bodies of the executed and other victims of the National Socialist (NS) regime for their work. Many of these victims had been executed in prisons and were members of the German political opposition; others had perished in camps for prisoners of war or forced laborers and concentration camps, and were of various European and other descent. Anatomists generally welcomed the increased influx of "fresh material" for purposes of research and education of the growing numbers of medical students. No anatomist is known to have refused work with the bodies of NS victims. Other medical disciplines also made use of these bodies, among them were racial hygienists and neuropathologists. In the late 19th and early 20th century, the fields of anatomy, physical anthropology, and racial hygiene (eugenics) were closely related in their subject matter. Anatomists were involved in the biological foundation of racial hygiene, most prominently among them Eugen Fischer. The discipline was established as part of the medical curriculum after 1920. Racial hygiene became the scientific justification for NS policies that led to racial discrimination, involuntary sterilization and ultimately mass murder. Anatomists taught racial hygiene throughout the Third Reich and did research in this area. Some were actively involved in NS policies through propaganda and evaluations for the so-called Genetic Health Courts, whereas others became victims of their own science in that they were dismissed for racial reasons.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Reaction Of Anatomists To ''New Material'' From Camps and Exmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomy in the Third Reich: An outline, part 2. Bodies for anatomy and related medical disciplines

Hildebrandt

2009

“…There were indeed strict ethical standards in NS Germany (Rütten, 1997), and students of medicine studied the subject as part of their mandatory curriculum. Generally, NS medical ideology despised so-called science for science's sake and promoted a medicine that served the German people, the Volk (Proctor, 2000;Hildebrandt, 2006). Thus every action was ethical that ensured the health of the German people as a whole, and such actions included sterilization, so-called euthanasia, and finally mass murder (Kröner, 1996).…”

Section: Ethics Of Anatomy In Ns Germanymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results from research from this time period, e.g., Hermann Stieve or Wolfgang Bargmann, were frequently used without the acknowledgment of the origin of their material. The first in-depth discussion about the legitimacy of the use of anatomical work stemming from NS Germany began in the 1980s and focused on Pernkopf's topographical atlas (Hildebrandt, 2006). The Pernkopf controversy was part of a larger discussion concerning the moral legitimacy of using results from NS science (e.g., Caplan, 1992;Michalczyk, 1994).…”

Section: Postwar Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomy in the Third Reich: an outline, part 3. The science and ethics of anatomy in National Socialist Germany and postwar consequences

Hildebrandt

2009

Anatomists in National Socialist (NS) Germany did research on materials from animals and humans, including tissues from the bodies of NS victims. The research was competent but rarely innovative. This may be due to the isolation of the German research community from international developments, as well as to the dismissal of a great number of successful anatomists for racial or political reasons. Other research was unproductive because of its foundation in the pseudoscience of racial hygiene. Anatomists in the Third Reich acted according to a new set of medical ethics favored by the NS regime. Not the individual human being but the "body of the people" as a whole was the object of this ethics. Every action was ethical that ensured the health of the German people, including sterilization, so-called euthanasia, and finally mass murder. Anatomists made use of the opportunities given to them by the NS regime, which led to the postmortem utilization of the bodies of NS victims. After the war, most anatomists retained their positions and NS history was not discussed until the later 20th century. Since then, historical research and public discussions have led to an increased awareness of questions of ethics in anatomy. The history of anatomy in the Third Reich illustrates that the theory and practice of a science is dependent on the political system it exists in, and that the scientists' competence not only in their science but also in politics and ethics is a prerequisite for the freedom of science.

“…There are two diametrically opposed views over the continued use of Pernkopf's atlas. Opposing positions have been put forward by Hildebrandt (2006) and Riggs (1998). There are those who would like to see the atlas banned on the basis of the evil implicit in its creation and because this evil will be further perpetrated, or even justified, by the continued use of the atlas.…”

Section: The Nazi Legacy: Contemporary Issues For Gross Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomical investigations and their ethical dilemmas

Jones

2006

The multi-faceted nature of modern anatomy comes as a surprise to many, especially when confronted by such seemingly different topics as cadavers and human embryo research. However, even these disparate facets of anatomy are linked by common underlying ethical considerations. This article traces historical views of anatomy and places them alongside the more contemporary dimensions of whole-body plastination, use of human material obtained under unethical circumstances, and human embryo research. These dimensions introduce issues of respect, human dignity, consent, scientific integrity, and societal expectations.