Article info
PDFResearch ethics
Essay
Research and complicity: the case of Julius Hallervorden
- Correspondence to Franklin G Miller, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Room 1C118, Bethesda, MD 20892-1156, USA; fmiller{at}nih.gov
Citation
Research and complicity: the case of Julius Hallervorden
Publication history
- Received April 8, 2011
- Revised May 2, 2011
- Accepted May 24, 2011
- First published June 21, 2011.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Other content recommended for you
- Despising the weak: long shadows of infant murder in Nazi Germany
- Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles
- Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson’s analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations
- What’s in a name? Embryos, entities, and ANTities in the stem cell debate
- Ethics of dead participants: policy recommendations for biobank research
- How to depolarise the ethical debate over human embryonic stem cell research (and other ethical debates too!)
- Abortion, embryo destruction and the future of value argument
- The need for donor consent in mitochondrial replacement
- To protect or to publish: confidentiality and the fate of the mentally ill victims of Nazi euthanasia
- A long shadow: Nazi doctors, moral vulnerability and contemporary medical culture