Assigning Guilt and Dispersing Blame: Conspiracy Discourse and the Limits of Law in the Nuremberg Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 521
Author(s):  
Niebauer
Keyword(s):  
1994 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 496-501
Author(s):  
Daniel P. King
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Geoffrey Bennington

Scatter 2 identifies politics as an object of perennial difficulty for philosophy—as recalcitrant to philosophical mastery as is philosophy’s traditional adversary, poetry. That difficulty makes it an attractive area of attention for any deconstructive approach to the tradition from which we inevitably inherit our language and our concepts. Scatter 2 pursues that deconstruction, often starting, and sometimes departing, from the work of Jacques Derrida, by attending to the concepts of sovereignty on the one hand, and democracy on the other. Part I follows the fate of a line from Book II of Homer’s Iliad, where Odysseus asserts that “the rule of many is no good thing, let there be one ruler, one king,” as it is quoted and misquoted, and progressively Christianized, by authors including Aristotle, Philo Judaeus, Suetonius, the early Church Fathers, Aquinas, Dante, Ockham, Marsilius of Padua, Jean Bodin, Etienne de la Boétie, up to Carl Schmitt and Erik Peterson, and even one of the defendants at the Nuremberg Trials, before being discussed by Derrida himself. Part II begins again, as it were, with Plato and Aristotle, and tracks the concept of democracy as it regularly impacts and tends to undermine that sovereignist tradition, and, more especially in detailed readings of Hobbes and Rousseau, develops a notion of “proto-democracy” as a possible name for the scatter that underlies and drives the political as such, and that will always prevent politics from achieving its aim of bringing itself to an end.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
AG Chuchalin ◽  
YN Sayamov

The article reveals the significance of the Nuremberg trials for rethinking the moral foundations of medicine; the role of the Nuremberg Code in the development of voluntary informed consent in clinical practice and in clinical trials, as well as its impact on the international legal regulation of the health sector is considered. The authors focus on the importance of the lessons of Nuremberg for understanding the ethical challenges that have emerged in the 21st century as a result of the development of artificial intelligence technologies, editing of the human genome and the emergence of new forms of parenting, largely associated with the achievements of new reproductive technologies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 348-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Teitelbaum ◽  
Lara Cartwright-Smith ◽  
Sara Rosenbaum

More than twenty-four million people in the United States are considered limited English proficient (LEP), and numerous studies have documented the consequences of communication barriers in healthcare. These consequences include: patients’ inability to become engaged and involved in their care; the absence of crucial information—including cultural information—essential to healthcare quality; risks to patient safety arising from the misunderstanding of physician instructions; and ethical and legal lapses stemming from the absence of informed consent. Addressing healthcare rights necessarily entails coming to grips with how to facilitate communication and the exchange of information between the healthcare system and an increasingly diverse patient population.The history of language access services in healthcare is grounded in two distinct bodies of law: the law of informed consent and civil rights law. Modern notions of informed consent law—which have their roots in the Nuremberg trials of the late 1940s—would recognize a cause of action in tort where a lack of adequate communication creates a barrier to an LEP patient's ability to consent to care. In modern healthcare law, the ability of patients to affirmatively give informed consent to treatment is considered a fundamental element of healthcare quality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document