Comments on: Captain America's Enlistment and Experimentation: Was It Ethical?

By: John

John — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:57:41 +0000

The thing is, Steve Rogers wasn’t a victim of the propaganda that the government was using to boost the war effort. Steve expresses no reservations or negative judgement when the doctor who recruits him reveals that he is a German national. When the doctor asks Steve if he is eager to kill Germans, Steve responds by saying that he doesn’t want to kill anyone, he just doesn’t like bullies, which his how he view the Nazis. He even prevents the procedure from being stopped, despite experiencing great pain. He seemed extremely aware of the consequences involved with his decisions, which in turns makes the super-soldier experiment an ethical one.

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 04:20:38 +0000

@Kyle, I think you meant “viz.” rather than “i.e.” in the third to last paragraph.

Your posts about Captain America are really making me want to see the movie. It’ll be nice to have all these philosophical thoughts on the way in, so that it won’t be just an action movie.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:12:07 +0000

He was probably treated better than “the Hulk” for example.

The real medical ethical questions may have more to do with the tasks he is given once the experiment is implimented to test his limits. These tests compromise the ability to address harm to him if he doesn’t measure up that would be present if the tests were done in a more controlled environment for the self-serving purpose of furthering the government’s war effort.

The issue for this part of the analysis is when an experiment is really over.

By: Desde el Más Allá

Desde el Más Allá — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:06:51 +0000

You should read the real story of the Captain America proyect. http://www.amazon.com/Truth-White-Black-Robert-Morales/dp/0785110720

By: Greg Fish

Greg Fish — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:45:02 +0000

“Coercion or undue influence” must mean something aimed at the test subject…

In research, this generally means trying to bribe or threaten the test subject, i.e. “do this and we won’t torture and kill your daughter” or “if you do this, we’ll make you a millionaire.” I’m sure someone can be affected by propaganda, but at the same time, propaganda is not that great of a coercion tool. It can motivate people to enlist in the military and fight on the front lines, but it can also motivate someone to enlist while doing everything possible to avoid combat duty. Its effects vary widely from person to person.

One could say that transhumanist aspirations of achieving an unlimited lifespan is propaganda that would motivate people to participate in risky experiments. But if I were a researcher carrying out some of these novel experiments on humans, I would argue that those who volunteered did so out of the natural desire to preserve and extend their lives rather than because they were told to do it by transhumanists. And an IRB would probably have a hard time disputing that. The same idea applies to this fictional scenario.

Considering how some medical experiments in the United States as well as Germany were done [in the 40's]…

Absolutely. One could also throw in Japan’s Unit 731 into the mix. In comparison to the sanctioned quasi-medical torture of the 30s, 40s and 50s, Rogers was treated by the same standards with which we’d treat a human experimental subject today.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 02:37:27 +0000

“those who may be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence.”

I don’t think someone influenced by propaganda comes under the strict reading of this section. SR wasn’t being personally targeted. “Coercion or undue influence” must mean something aimed at the test subject, otherwise it becomes impossible to interpret.

(As Dr. Cuddles says, by the standards of the day this was unusually ethical.)

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:18:09 +0000

Yes, you cannot apply medical ethics from decades after the war to an earlier period in this way… Plus this wasn’t a medical procedure meant for healthcare..
it was to develop a weapon of war in a time of war…. Not the same…
Although wasn’t Captain America supposed to be a product of clean American living… Not steroids or Nazi eugenics style meddling…?

By: dr. cuddles

dr. cuddles — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:21:23 +0000

But your using medical ethics from the 60′s to judge a medical experiment in the 40′s. Considering how some medical experiments in the United States as well as Germany were done, I’d say this one was almost exceptional.

By: steve

steve — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:40:01 +0000

These days, screenplays go through several script doctors in a row, each with their own specialties. There’s this one guy who works mostly on superhero movies. He has a rubber stamp that says, “Ethical. But just barely.”