The Nuremburg Code 1947

At the end of World War 2, after, in particular, the disaster of the Holocaust becoming apparent, many leading Nazis were hunted down and brought to trial to face justice for war crimes. One of the main international trials, indeed the biggest international trial to date, occurred at Nuremburg in November 1945 where leading figures from the Nazi Regime in Germany were brought to trial. Indeed, this trial was one of the very first places where the science of modern Translation and Interpreting Practices were first put into practice with the interpreters’ booth being used for the first time. A famous Nazi doctor, ‘The Angel Of Death’ Josef Mengele experimented on Jewish Holocaust victims in the concentration camp Auschwitz II – Birkenau, selecting which victims would face extermination in the gas chambers. These doctors used to do sick genetic experiments on Jewish child identical twins. They also rolled out a sterilization program across Germany, pioneers of the en vogue Nazi eugenics. When all this experimentation in the name of science was discovered, the Nuremburg Code of 1947 was produced. Its aim was to prevent further abuses of medical power by doctors and it was to be rolled out universally across the world, along with such agreements as the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, these agreed treaties and documents were put in place in order to prevent such tragedy occurring as a global conflagration future World War 3. To date World War 3 hasn’t broken out, yet as the generations who actually fought and lived through World War 2 pass on, as a society we seem to be forgetting the lessons that were taught to us. Documents such as the Nuremburg Code were produced for a reason. See below its main ten points:

Nuremburg Trials

The ten points of the Nuremberg Code

The ten points of the code were given in the section of the judges’ verdict entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments”:

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

In my own 26 year experiences of the U.K. mental health system, the most frustrating aspect to me of the Mental Health Act 1983, is that when placed under section, you apparently, by law, lose your rights as a patient to consent to treatment and the psychiatrist can medicate you against your consent with what she likes, as high  a dose as he/she chooses, using violence if necessary, in order to administer the medication. On Day 1 for me in the system 02.04.1997, I refused point blank to take medication and six nurses attacked me, pinned me down, brutally assaulted me and injected me with a high doses of Clopixol which wiped me out for three days with me not regaining consciousness. From that day forth I have consistently refused to comply at all with any form of mental health medication. Every single dose of psychiatric medication administered to me has been done with coercion, using force. UI have been severely injured. I am allergic to Clopixol and have had, I would estimate about 1500 of these particular injections plus they have experimented on me with about every brand of psychiatric medication available, usually at high dose ranges. It makes you so physically ill and I have had a lot of hospital treatment for side effects caused by this non-consensual experimental treatment against consent. I was diagnosed with ‘Mild Schizophrenia’ yet have never suffered a symptom of this alleged ‘disease’. Even if I had heard voices or experienced delusions of grandeur, the administered medication would not treat the symptoms. Mental illness is not a pathological disease. A brain of a ‘Schizophrenic’ when examined by an MRI scan is exactly the same as a normal person’s brain. No difference. Their neurotransmitter theories of Psychiatry are all totally flawed. It is an experimental discipline. Psychiatry is not scientific. It is a pseudoscience at best, practised by charlatans, who are clueless and usually morbidly inclined individuals such as the notorious Josef Mengele.

My argument is that Psychiatry and Treatment Against Consent, any form of coercion, is inconsistent with the explicit terms that are stated in the Nuremburg Code of 1947. This Code negates any powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 that are claimed by psychiatrists and thus renders this Parliamentary Act totally illegal and anyone who uses and abuses the power of this act are criminals and should be treated as criminals and taken to courts such as the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague where they can be put on trial and so that justice can reign. I’d like to eradicate psychiatry – I feel that it is that dangerous to humanity. The whole subject smacks of Nazi tendencies and is archaic and unfit for the modern world.

I am trying to get Jessica Morden MP to take up my thoughts in the Nuremburg Code in Parliament. I have been studying closely the proposed amendments of the Mental Health Act 1983 that are overdue a hearing in the House of Commons. After the Wessely Report and White Paper were produced, MPs were supposed to debate the new amendments yet due to Covid-19 the whole process has been delayed. I am due to be meeting with Jessica in Parliament on 20th June2023 and I hope that we can somehow make some progress on this issue then.

Leave a Reply