The Americans’ higher-law thinking behind higher lawmaking

Joyce Appleby

Yale Law Journal
The Yale Law Journal

Extract
Bruce Ackerman’s “We The People: Transformations” is elegantly conceived, theoretically clever, rhetorically inventive, and empirically convincing, but it remains ideologically inadequate. . . . In the absence of attention to how people in the United States have come to think about a higher law, Ackerman has fallen back on a Whiggish view where love of liberty and justice is assumed to be part of the human endowment, at least of American humans. Fused convictions about democratic governance and liberal aspirations motivate Ackerman’s We the People. . . . This Whiggish overlay upon the argument of Transformations appears most strikingly in the discussion of Reconstruction, in which all acts are optimized-whether those of intransigent Radical Republicans or white supremacist Southern Redeemers. Some higher force is orchestrating this partisan cacophony into a melodious resolution. . . . I will pose the proposition that two higher law concepts have polarized American politics from Alexander Hamilton through Ronald Reagan, and that they need to be put into the picture of Ackerman’s grand transformative moments.


Appleby J. The Americans’ higher-law thinking behind higher lawmaking. Yale Law J. 1999;108(8):1995-2001.

(Correspondence) Some final responses to Dr. Waugh

Timothy J Cuddy

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
. . . For people with genuine morals, right and wrong do not change with popular public opinion . . . Before we congratulate our society on its social evolution over the last 50 years, we should reflect on the outcome of the society in history that practised throwing people to the lions, or perhaps the society of the 1940s that practised execution of races believed to be inferior.

[Dr. Waugh planned to respond to these letters but was unable to do so before his death on Apr. 18, 1997. In this issue, CMAJ features a tribute to Waugh (page 1524) as well as an article on issues surrounding access to abortion services (page 1545). — Ed.].


Cuddy TJ. (Correspondence) Some final responses to Dr. Waugh. Can Med Assoc. J. 1997 Jun 01;156(11):1529.

Abortion and our changing society

Douglas Waugh

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
When I was a medical student in the early ‘40s, and for a considerable time after that, the artificial termination of pregnancy was considered an unspeakable crime. . . . No one knew for certain how widespread the practice was, but enough patients turned up in emergency departments or in the morgue for us to know it was going on, and to arouse the ire and indignation of society’s moralists. . . . The credit for bringing the revolution about certainly belongs to Dr. Henry Morgentaler, but it is clear that Canada’s social climate had been changing slowly for several years before he defied the law by opening his first abortion clinic in Montreal . . . True, the anti-abortion campaign is not yet dead, but its force has become so attenuated the impact is limited.


Waugh D. Abortion and our changing society. Can Med Assoc J. 1997 Feb 01;156(3):408.

Hitler’s plans for genocide: a speech from 1939

Donald Acheson

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Extract
On August 22, 1939, Adolf Hitler gave a secret speech to his top military advisers, outlining his plans for German settlement of Poland. The speech so shocked his audience that a copy was smuggled out to the British Embassy. What follows is the transcript, now in the files of the Foreign Office in London.


Acheson D. Hitler’s plans for genocide: a speech from 1939. Br Med J. 1996;313:1416.

Nuremberg lamentation: for the forgotten victims of medical science

William E Seidelman

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Abstract
Fifty years after the Nuremberg medical trial there remain many unanswered questions about the role of the German medical profession during the Third Reich. Other than the question of human experimentation, important ethical challenges arising from medicine in Nazi Germany which have continuing relevance were not addressed at Nuremberg. The underlying moral question is that of the exercise of professional power and its impact on vulnerable people seeking medical care. Sensitisation to the obligations of professional power may be achieved by an annual commemoration and lament to the memory of the victims of medical abuse which would serve as a recurring reminder of the physician’s vulnerability and fallibility.


Seidelman WE. Nuremberg lamentation: for the forgotten victims of medical science. Br Med J. 1996 Dec 7;313(7070):1463-1467.

Human guinea pigs and the ethics of experimentation: the BMJ’s correspondent at the Nuremberg medical trial

Paul Weindling

British Medical Journal, BMJ
British Medical Journal

Abstract
Though the Nuremberg medical trial was a United States military tribunal, British forensic pathologists supplied extensive evidence for the trial. The BMJ had a correspondent at the trial, and he endorsed a utilitarian legitimation of clinical experiments, justifying the medical research carried out under Nazism as of long term scientific benefit despite the human costs. The British supported an international medical commission to evaluate the ethics and scientific quality of German research. Medical opinions differed over whether German medical atrocities should be given publicity or treated in confidence. The BMJ’s correspondent warned against medical researchers being taken over by a totalitarian state, and these arguments were used to oppose the NHS and any state control over medical research.


Weindling P. Human guinea pigs and the ethics of experimentation: the BMJ’s correspondent at the Nuremberg medical trial. Br Med J. 1996 Dec 07;313(7070):1467-1470.

Nuremberg and the Issue of Wartime Experiments on US Prisoners

The Green Committee

Jon M. Harkness

Journal of the American Medical Association
Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract
Defense attorneys at the Nuremberg Medical Trial argued that no ethical difference existed between experiments in Nazi Concentration camps and research in U.S. prisons. Investigations that had taken place in an Illinois prison became an early focus of this argument. Andrew C. Ivy, MD, whom the American Medical Association had selected as a consultant to the Nuremeberg prosecutors, responded to courtroom crticisim of research in his home state by encouraging the Illinois governor to establish a committee to evaluate prison research. The governor names a committee and accepted Ivy’s offer to chair the panel. Late in the trial, Ivy testified – drawing on the authority of this committee – that research on Us prisoners was ethically ideal. However, the governor’s committee had never met. After the trial’s conclusion, the report was published in JAMA, where it became a source of support for experimentation on prisoners.


Harkness J. Nuremberg and the Issue of Wartime Experiments on US Prisoners: The Green Committee. JAMA. 1996;276(20):1672–1675. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540200058032

(News) “Democracy was never intended for degenerates”: Alberta’s flirtation with eugenics comes back to haunt it

Richard Cairney

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract
An Alberta woman recently won a lawsuit against the government of Alberta for wrongful sterilization that took place when she was a 14-year-old ward at the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives. It was the first time the province has been held accountable for actions taken under the Sexual Sterilization Act, a 1927 law that promoted the theory of eugenics and led to the sterilization of more than 2800 people. It has since been repealed. A physician who served on the province’s Eugenics Board said the decisions were based on the best scientific advice and medical techniques available at the time. Today, she added, eugenics is being practised in a different way through prenatal diagnosis and therapeutic abortion..


Cairney R. “Democracy was never intended for degenerates”: Alberta’s flirtation with eugenics comes back to haunt it. Can. Med. Assoc. J.. 1996;155(6):789-792.

(Correspondence) Understanding fanatics and followers (The author responds)

Douglas Waugh

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
Dr. Hoaken brings his formidable analytic talents to bear on the problem of assaults on abortionists. Certainly the concept of “justifiable homicide” would or should be abhorrent to us all – I say this as a former soldier in World War II, in which a lot of “justifiable homicide” took place. . . .If I read his letter correctly, his plea is for a greater degree of humane tolerance than seems to prevail now. I could not agree more strongly. I believe that Drs. Fireman and Lemoine would endorse this view. Their comments on the genocidal behaviour in Nazi Germany during World War II are well taken; in an earlier draft of my manuscript I did make this comparison. . . . I believe Fireman, Lemoine and I have similar, if not identical, views on this.


Waugh D. (Correspondence) Understanding fanatics and followers (The author responds). Can Med Assoc J. 1995 Mar 15;152(6):808.

Who is worse? Fanatics or their followers?

Douglas Waugh

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ
Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
When Dr. Garson Romalis was shot in Vancouver in November – police have suggested there is a link between the shooting and his performance of abortions – I realized there are certain aspects of human behaviour that I will never figure out. What could give rise to such hatred? What mysterious willingness causes people to let themselves be led into destructive and pointless violence? . . . Although the motives in these cases are undoubtedly complex, it seems clear that each of the fanatic snipers intended to kill, maim or scare the daylights out of these physicians and others like them. And although society as a whole reacted to the events with revulsion, there were without doubt people who said of each case: “Right on! That’s the proper treatment for those baby killers.” . . . Even if we must accept the occasional appearance of a misguided or mad killer among us, must we also accept the frightening cluster of approving supporters who almost inevitably turn up to endorse the madman and his ideas?


Waugh D. Who is worse? Fanatics or their followers?. Can Med Assoc J. 1995 Jan 01;152(1):90.