Read Disability Claims Articles
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Search | Rules
- 0
Read Disability Claims Articles
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Search | Rules
Question
Stretch
Is it clear what Congress opinion is on regarding the Feres Doctrine?
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issue...-08.htm#seventh
G. THE FERES DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL WHO ARE HARMED BY INAPPROPRIATE HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION WHEN INFORMED CONSENT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN.
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Feres Doctrine to mean that soldiers "injured in the course of activity incident to service" may not sue the Government for compensation. (Note 168) However, when inappropriate experimentation has resulted in suffering for military personnel, this interpretation stands in violation of established ethical standards, including the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the "Common Rule." Congress should not apply the Feres Doctrine for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate experimentation when informed consent has not been given.
The U.S. Supreme Court mentioned the Nuremberg Code in United States v. Stanley in 1987. James Stanley, an Army serviceman, volunteered to test the effectiveness of protective clothing and equipment against chemical warfare in February 1958. (Note 169) In the process, he unknowingly received LSD as part of an Army study to determine the effects of the drug on humans. Although Stanley suffered from periods of incoherence and memory loss for years, he only learned in 1975 that he had participated in the LSD study when the Army solicited his cooperation in a followup study. Having been denied compensation for injury by the Army, Stanley filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court, split 5 to 4. (Note 170) Justice Scalia wrote that permitting Stanley to sue the Army would disrupt the Army itself and "would call into question military discipline and decision-making." However, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for herself as one of the dissenting judges, stated that the Feres doctrine bar
"surely cannot insulate defendants from liability for deliberate and calculated exposure of otherwise healthy military personnel to medical experimentation without their consent, outside of any combat, combat training, or military exigency..." (Note 171)
Justice O'Connor also commented on the Nuremberg Code in her writing, stating that voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential, even for the U.S. military. It was, after all, the U.S. military who played an instrumental role in the criminal prosecution of the Nazi officials who experimented with human beings during World War II.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
4
2
2
1
Popular Days
Dec 9
3
Feb 15
2
Mar 25
2
Dec 29
1
Top Posters For This Question
Stretch 4 posts
Testvet 2 posts
The Old medic 2 posts
MikeR 1 post
Popular Days
Dec 9 2009
3 posts
Feb 15 2009
2 posts
Mar 25 2009
2 posts
Dec 29 2008
1 post
10 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now