medical mystery madmen

Here we had an amusing story. While the doctors who ended up treating Rudy had "experimented" on him there was no risk. The true madness of the story are the doctors that treated Rudy until he was found/recommended to the doctor at the NIH. He is repeatedly given pills and antibiotics with no apparent reasoning behind the medication. Even with the cold or flu or even hepatitis the antibiotics would be completely ineffective. Follow that with misdiagnosing a tumor by... pretending it was there? The absolute horror of this light-hearted tale is the malpractice leading to Rudy's productive treatment. Forget about the experimenting with a harmless metal supplement, are people misdiagnosed and mistreated like Rudy was before going to the NIH?

Rouche Selection

After reading this selection I find myself both admiring Doctors and questioning them.

Dr. Henkin knew fully well that Zinc, at the time, was an experimental drug. And yet, he gave them to his patients. Did he even tell them it was an experimental drug, and hadn't been cleared?? On top of that, I can't believe that he lost track of his patients. Shouldn't a doctor, administering experimental drugs to patients, at the very least keep track of them?

I am also impressed that he was able to come up with the idea in the first place. Low zinc. Rudy went to five or six doctors all assuming mental issues or even tumor. Yet, when Rudy went to see Dr. Henkin, he was able to be helped. 

I find it a little weird that Dr. Henkin would administer a placebo in the place of a pill he already knew had worked to help others. Rudy, not coming to Dr. Henkin when symptoms started to return, is understandable. Rudy didn't want to disappoint Dr. Henkin. 

However, when Rudy did tell Dr. Henkin the symptoms had returned, I found my self a little annoyed if not angry at Dr. Henkin's response. If a doctor ever laughed at me for telling him my symptoms I would be furious. 

Some questions I have about this passage include:

Why did the doctors Rudy saw in the beginning continually ask Rudy whether he liked his work or not?

Why would the doctors tell Rudy to operate if there wasn't a tumor? I feel like the first doctor assumed, and when the second doctor called the first, I feel like he was influenced and then assumed the same. Much like a placebo pill, I feel like one doctor hearing another doctors reasoning could influence the other. 

"Why not?" Wouldn't a doctor at N.I.H. question something a little more before prescribing it? I would hope a doctor I see never just asked himself, "Oh why not, let's see what happens." It's a little messed up if you ask me.

Another question I had was in regards to Dr. Henkin. It said on page 259 that he had an appointment held since July 1969. I find this to be extremely interesting because Rudy's symptoms began in July 1969. Coincidence?

The Medical Detectives

     I personally don't consider the doctor any of the doctors in this story to be medical madmen, especially Dr. Henkin. Rudy had a problem that wasn't caused by anyone in particular, all he did was seek help in finding a cure. After seeing a numerous amount of doctors, none of which knew what the problem was, Rudy was sent to Dr. Henkin who turned out to be a huge help. Rudy's case has become a bases for a series of experiments and questions. Though his case was not the first of its kind, he was the only one who was close enough for Dr. Henkin to keep track of. Dr. Henkin had given Rudy a placebo pill to confirm his hypothesis and to make sure that Rudy's problem wasn't psychosomatic. It turns out that many people have this problem which is caused by a number of different things. The double blinded and single blinded experiments both seem like good experiments to me. It didn't harm anyone in a sense of someone having a bad reaction. It isn't as extreme as the cases we've been reading about where the doctor is cutting off body parts of unwilling patients. The zinc treatments were really beneficial to the people in the study rather the had the disease or not. Though they didn't find all of the answers to the questions in this stories, it did get researchers thinking about ways to make sure that no one goes through life without the appropriate taste buds.

Idiopathic Hypogeusia: A Medical Mystery

In The Medical Detectives by Berton Roueche, many important questions are raised. First of all, why are these people suffering from these symptoms? In some cases, it seemed to have happened rapidly, while in others, it seemed to be gradual. Dr. Henkin says the symptoms are commonly associated with hepatitis, pregnancy, and the common cold. So why in some cases are they still there afterwards? Dr. Henkin tested with metals in one man, and he ended up giving him zinc pills; even though he wasn't sure it was going to work. It did however, and the man went on his way. The same symptoms were experienced by another man and Dr. Henkin gave him the same pills, and they worked on him as well. Then, when he met Rudy, he saw the same symptoms. This time though, he did more thorough tests on him. There was also an experiment done where some patients were given placebos and others were give the real pills. Not even the doctors were told which patients were given what. It turned out that some patients that were given placebos felt better, and some given the actual drug had no improvement. The doctors were shocked by these results, they were almost positive that the zinc pills would work for everyone. Finding out this new information, he did tests on Rudy to see if zinc was in fact in the saliva. He determined that it was, and that people who had less zinc in their taste buds usually had these symptoms. He gave Rudy the pills and after a while he was back to new. When he went back to Dr. Henkin for a follow up, the doctor gave him placebos, which he didn't know about. As Dr. Henkin expected, a few months later Rudy came back and said the symptoms came back; he knew then that the pills actually did work. This also brings up the fact of experimentation and the ethics behind it. The doctor knowingly gave Rudy placebos, thinking that his symptoms would reappear. Is this ok if it was for medical knowledge that could potentially benefit others? Is experimentation considered justifiable if these patients have no other options? These questions don't have easy answers.

Mad Doctors and The Debt

Mad Doctors have long held a fascination with most people. From their complex, often uncompromising natures to their ability to bend the rules for their personal gain, or risk everything anyone else would hold near in pursuit of some idea.
In the Debt,  Dr.  Dieter Vogel a Nazi Doctor referred to as the Surgeon of Birkenau set up a practice in Berlin after he escaped the war. He managed to eluded officials for years and to the casual observer seems like a poster child for rehabilitation, but his also all too ready to jump back on "the nazi bandwagon if it ever rolls into town".
As a result Dr. Vogel is a complex character, which makes it is easy and tempting to write him off as a psychopath. We often do this because we probably do not have an explanation as to how an intelligent, upstanding person could be capable of such atrocities, stooping down to such a low level. After all crime is usually associated and  reserved for the poverty stricken populous.
This shows how we have come to define people according to how much money they earn and their social standing - a belief propagated by the thought that if someone has money they are well adjusted and what more could they ever need from the world they are comfortable. And that criminal activities only exist among the poor. Mad doctors force us to reevaluate our beliefs about intelligence and good standing.
Knowledge is power and with that power comes a great responsibility to hold on to one's moral compass, so that the individual can remain grounded.  Once this moral compass is lost, the individual becomes drunk with power and since they have not only knowledge they now have the capacity to manipulate situations and people in their favor and for their own benefit, which is almost always catastrophic.

Medical Madmen Project

During my research, I stumbled upon interesting point of view, written by Dr. Adams as a foreword in "Doctors from Hell" by Vivien Spitz.In it,  Dr Adams stresses the importance of  having medical doctors and medical students read the book and any account of the atrocities committed by the Nazi doctors. This he hopes would help them see that the Nazi doctors where regular, respected people just like they are but became allowed themselves to be overtaken by power, recognition and prestige at the expense of the the individual patient for the so called greater good. That such an outlook lacks a moral compass, making it possible for any ordinary person to commit and justify their atrocities.
In his foreword, Dr. Adams stresses that this perspective is still prevalent today causing greater risk of repeating the same atrocities committed by the Nazi doctors.
This is because such a perspective transforms medicine from a profession that is entrusted with the welfare of the patient to a rat race for accomplishments at the expense of the patients. 
It is also important to note that many of the worst atrocities committed in human history, have been committed by intelligent, "well-adjusted", regular, "good" people, who for some reason almost always never mean any harm. They simply snapped and went crazy,  society  turns a blind eye. 
Society has a responsibility to hold people with knowledge to a higher standard of accountability. Maybe that way these individuals will not become dehumanized, drunk with power and could hold on to their moral compass. This way we could prevent atrocities from happening to innocent people - after all knowledge is power, and with power comes the responsibility to use it wisely.

Szymborska

The first thing I noticed about this Experiment poem, was how it portrayed happiness and sadness/anxiety all at the same time. To me, it was almost as if the feelings were bipolar, first they were up then they were down. Now not only are these feelings bipolar but its not even a human head- it’s a dogs head. She spoke about how if the dogs head were still to be attached it would have all of its senses back, as she gives examples on the mouth watering from bacon. Reading about how the head is just completely absent from the body made me feel slightly uncomfortable knowing that she was able to sit through and look at this dogs head with no problem. Then again, maybe she was reflecting on the dogs body connectedness, or in this case, the lack of. And how the brain cannot be switched because much of our experience in our thoughts relies on the body.

Szymborska

To me I felt like this poem went in a lot of different directions. The first being happiness. It talks about how the head was disconnected from the body and that it was happy and content because it didn’t know its situation. To me the person seems worried with what makes the dog happy. It is perfectly content but little does it know it no longer has a body. Is ignorance truly bliss? The person is frightened by what happiness is. Meaning is it better to be happy and ignorant or to have knowledge but be upset because of it? The dog is ignorant and happy but is it truly happy when it does not possess all the information?

Additionally, I thought that it may be talking about experiments and what we gain from them. Is happiness knowledge? Once we learn something are we still happy? What if what we gained no longer pleases us or upsets our outlook on life or some aspect of life? The dog with its narrow outlook is happy however if he turned around and realized he was no longer connected to a body that would probably change. I’m not exactly sure what this poem is trying to convey but to me they are questioning knowledge in relation to one’s happiness. The person is frightened after they think about happiness. They may have been evaluating things in their life where they thought they were happy but in essence really weren't  However, they may also be wondering about the cost of happiness. The experimenters may have been excited about their believed success in the experiment however, there is now a dog without a dog.

Emily Fenger

Szymborska Poem

I find this poem really off balance. It has a very happy sort of tone to it, but reading the actual words it becomes a little off putting. At first I though it was talking about a human and then it turned into talking about a dog. It makes me think of our class discussion about doctors performing autopsies to a room full of spectators while doing their research. I feel like that is very much the scene that is being played out, but with a morbid twist on it. I also think there is an underlying reference to the body and mind being two separate entities at time. The dog only has a head, yet it is still happy and finding joy in it's surroundings. Though the poem is disturbing and frankly morbid, it makes me think about finding happiness within my surroundings no matter my circumstance.

Happiness ? Szymborska Poem

This poem was rather confusing to me because I wasn't quite sure what the point was that the author was trying to get across to the readers. I also don't understand why the experiment was done or what they were trying to learn from it or why it was being shown to an audience for entertainment. 

The author seems to not show any real sympathy for the head considering he referred to the head as "it" rather than being given a name. As the poem read on he didn't seem phased by anything he was seeing until the very end when he expressed he was feeling frightened thinking about happiness. It states, "the head was happy," which I don't agree with. The head seemed content and unaware of what had happened to the rest of its body but that doesn?t show any sign of happiness. The head couldn't talk, and his tail (which could be an indicator of happiness/excitement) is missing. He responded with his natural senses to the surrounding environment but I believe happiness is something you acquire through living not being hooked to a machine and being put on display.

-Brittany Fegan

(posted by Dr. Renzi on her behalf)

Symbroska Poem

I'm a little confused by what might be happening within the poem.

I read it, as the point of view from a towns person waiting to watch an experiment preformed. I find it weird that the head, the main focus of the poem, is not the main part of the experiment.

The repetition of the word "it" rather than he or she shows the lack of humanity the test subject it shown. Not only that, but it is even stranger that the head was just cut off - there are no comments that would lead the reader to believe the author is apposed to this treatment. I find it hard to believe that there aren't any comments on the actual removal of the head from the body.

Again, the repetition of the word "it" shows distance. It doesn't make since not to call it a "he" or possibly a "she." It's one think if the gender is unknown, or maybe if the head was brought in alone and the person had not just been on unit in front of them. How is the detachment of the head so dehumanizing? A human head is a human head...

Why is it that when the author brings the readers attention to a dog, the word "dog" is actually used? Wouldn't it make more sense to say the "human" or even the "human head." Why is the human head within this experiment more a lab rat than an animal?

The final paragraph, which reads:
"I thought about happiness and was frightened.
For if that's all life is about,
the head
was happy."

I feel like the author is trying to say, a head is able to function and respond to the world around it. Life its self is a pool of interactions that function and respond to one another. The head is able to do so, therefore it must be happy. Its a scary thought that life, and everything that comes with it, in the end can seem so minute and meaningless.

Homo Sapiens 1900

The concept of Eugenics poses many moral and unethical issues. I see this movement as something more of a socialistic and humanistic movement. The idea of unwanted sterilization is something most were duped into believing was necessary for a better society. This whole movement brings back the concept of knowledge for the greater good but for whom. Many of these so called medical professions were more so doing it for personal gratification and knowledge was used for negative or wrong doing. This was a bad sales pitch that really went wrong. The so called Dr Hitler was simple attempting to eliminate the bad apples to do what he deemed was creating a better society based off of his authoritative role.

Homo Sapiens 1900

'There are times when saving a life is a greater crime than taking one.'  This quote near the beginning of the film, Homo Sapiens 1900, not only struck me as criminal, but it also seemed to excuse the bad medical practices that were occurring, specifically sterilization and the mass extermination movement to follow. This excuse was even validated as many government officials, doctors and even the general public agreed with the eugenics movement, that is, until Hitler took it too far during the Holocaust. Then, suddenly, the eugenics movement had opposition. As shown in the propaganda clip, Hitler’s Blood Tonic, the Americans can easily see past Hitler’s faulty logic and overzealous eugenic ideals. But why was this so hard to see before the Holocaust? Essentially the logic used to justify it was the same, and many, other than those who were being sterilized, thought eugenics was a perfectly sane idea as it corresponded with the populations racist ideals. The only difference, however, is eugenics wasn’t represented as comically as the propaganda clip, but rather shown as scientifically proven; therefore, the general population couldn’t see the ridiculousness of it.

Homo Sapiens

If Eugenics was possible/successful it would eliminate diversity and make everyone alike. If everyone was made equal physically and mentally then would society be able to improve itself? Eugenics is said to improve humanity by reducing crime and poverty. It would also destroy social classes. Would Eugenics really save humanity from degeneration?

Homo Sapiens 1900

Homo Sapiens 1900

There are few things I find interesting about this film and the whole eugenics movement. First, I think it’s very troubling how easy it was for the government to sterilize thousands of people, and this was in the not-so-distant past. This was during the time period where many different groups of people were fighting for equal rights, yet this goes on and no one seems to mind. I think it says a lot about our society that we were so willing to go to such extremes to prevent the birth of people who might be “undesirable”. It makes me wonder, who decided what and who was “undesirable”. I think this is very sinister plan, especially since according to the movie; a few geneticists came forward saying, “Eugenics is unscientific and backwards”. Luckily, in the U.S. this practice was stopped, but in Germany its not hard to see how this was a stepping stone to one of the greatest tragedies in history, the Holocaust.

Homo Sapiens 1900

Homo Sapiens 1900 demonstrated the prevalence of eugenics all over the world. It related eugenics to Dr. Frankenstein as they both use science to intervene in processes of nature. This implies that eugenics, like Dr. Frankenstein, takes part in a mad form of science.  Beginning to realize this, the American propaganda film displayed how the United States started to feel about eugenics.

Dr. Hitler’s Blood Tonic depicted Hitler as a scam artist. He was facetiously referred to as a doctor because he seemed to be trying to cure his country of deformity and illness by ridding it of what he would deem as imperfect people. The propaganda film also showed the destruction of a neighborhood consisting of people from various ethnic backgrounds. This provided imagery to the people watching the film of how horrific and destructive eugenics could be.

The idea of eugenics escalated, and Hitler’s Aryan race was soon formed. Hitler’s idealization of fitness and perfection put the lives of the imperfect at great risk.

-Elaina DiClemente

Hipocratic Oath

The Hipocratic Oath was an oath taken by those who practiced in the medical field. No one knows who wrote the original oath, but it dates back to the times of ancient Greece. Those who took the oath back in ancient Greece swore to the gods to hold by its requirements. There are several difference translations of this oath, but we only explored two of those translations and were clearly translated at different times. The oath seems to change its phrasing as society changes throughout the years. As a nursing student here at MSU I found both versions of the oath to be very interesting and noticed that some parts of the oath tied in to the HIPPA laws that all medical professionals have to swear by today.We were asked to study the different versions of the oath in depth and I noticed that they were basically the exact same text, but with slightly different phrasing (as stated earlier). In the second translation I felt that it was basically a summation of the first translation and was a little more simple. In the first translation it reads that "In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art." The second translation makes no reference to this. I think that the second translation did not include a holiness aspect because as time has gone on society has in a sense lost touch with religion when it comes to medical practice and therefore was not needed in the second translation of the oath. I do not have evidence to support this, but I have felt that those in the field of natural sciences have generally had a lesser connection to religion than those of other professional practices. I hope this doesn't offend anyone and if you would be willing to write your opinion on this I would be happy to read it!

The second part of the page that we read discussed the Declaration of Geneva. I felt that both of these versions were an even greater summation of the Hippocratic oath and still the second version being more up-to-date and summed up than the first. One thing I noticed being different from the first version to the second is that the first version states that "My colleagues will be my brothers" whereas the second version states "My colleagues will be my brothers and sisters." I think that this is a great representation of the addition of women to the medical field over time and the changes made to include women as equals to men in this profession.

-Is the Decleration of Geneva different today as compared to the second version that we read?
-At what point did the Hippocratic Oath stop being sworn to the Greek Gods Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, Panacea, and all the gods and goddesses?

-Corey Tynan

The Debt

The film we watched in class tied in with the Nazi experimentation. The film was much more different than what I expected. I was surprised that that dr. Vogel ended up being the doctor portraying Josef Mengle. He didn't seem like he would enjoy inflicting pain on people at first. I was also surprised about how blunt he was about the things he said to Rachel about Jews as she was feeding him. Overall I think the film was interesting and it kept you thinking and confused the whole way

Blogging Assignment: The Debt

            For this past week we watched the movie The Debt. This movie tied into what we talked about in class for the last couple weeks, which was Nazi Germany and the doctors that would run experiments on Jewish patients. These experiments were extremely cruel and are one of the most disturbing parts of history. The doctor in the movie was portrayed similar to Josef Mengele, who was a  Nazi doctor who mostly treated twins. His experiments were known as extremely cruel and extremely painful. The part of the movie I found most interesting is that in the movie the doctor seemed like he wanted to help the main character when she came for treatment. Even thought these doctors are shown and talked about as evil, which they were, the film showed that they were people just trying to help but in a despicable way. I found this extremely interesting because these doctors want to help and see what there doing as right, but when they are in reality committing gruesome crimes.

Jacob Cipriano (posted by Dr. Renzi on his behalf)

 

The Debt

This is the first story that we have come across where the mad doctor is treated as the person under others control.  With the mad doctor being in the position of restraint, he still aggravates and stirs up emotions in his guards so it appears that he is in control in a sense.  This reversal of roles does bring up a lot of perspective on the stresses and what one might do in the power position.  The agents were sent to go capture the doctor and bring him back for trial treating him as a normal prisoner that is not to be harmed.  We later see that Stephan cares less and less about how the doctor is treated and we see a bit of mad doctor characteristics in him, in the sense of starting to use methods that might border the line of torture with the prisoner.  I also thought it was interesting when the doctor brings up that Rachael is pregnant and that he thought that Stephan was the wrong match for a husband/father compared to David.  This touches on the Nazi idea of Eugenics and that people should be told who they should be conceiving children with to better society and the human race.  All in all I enjoyed this movie it gave a much different look in at the mad doctor in a type of role reversal.

The Debt

Since we were told before the movie started that the doctor was to resemble Josef Mengele, I was constantly looking for similarities.  In the first half, those seemed scarce--Megele was said to be charming and somewhat handsome, whereas the doctor in the film was older, very creepy, and nice but I would not go as far as charming.  We also were not told exactly what he had done.  The second half of the movie made more similarities clear.  He seemed to know just what to say to those who were holding him prisoner to get under their skin and make them emotional.  This seemed to fit more with the description of a mad doctor than he previously had.  David also gives us some examples of what the doctor did in Nazi Germany.  Voegle gives us some insight to his madness when he responds with why the Jews were targeted and why so many died.  Another similarity between the character and Mengele was that they both disappeared before paying for their crimes.  The last few minutes of the movie kept you on your seat, wondering who would be victorious and desperately hoping it wasn't the heartless man that had hurt so many people.  Seeing how he was finally ended because of what he did makes me hope that somehow, even if it wasn't documented, Mengele had to pay for what he did so many years ago.

The Front Lines of Empathy- Nazi Germany

When referring to the "mad doctor" I would like to focus on the concept of empathy in regards to the doctors we have read about in Bad Medicine. Empathy is the ability to recognize emotions that are being experienced by others. In many definitions such as mad, crazy, senile, and many others; a lack of or misunderstanding of empathy is always present.

The obvious imbalance of empathy when looking at our nazi doctors is the relationship they have help with their patients. Any person who decides to push the human body to its limits in a low pressure chamber, or open the chest of a human while that person is still alive, or elects to use prisoners for the point of obtaining an exact point of death is obviously lacking the ability to see or feel what these people are going through. The justification at the Nuremburg Trials were directed towards the concept of "greater good," but could have been better depicted through a concept of "absence of empathy." While this corruption proves a form of madness a more subtle form of empathy (or lack there of) proves more disturbing.

The less obvious relationship lies between the doctors and commanders and depicts human actions truly slipping into the realm of madness. Whether it be a dictatorship, a democracy, or a communist party; relationships between officials delegate all powers and abilities of its members. What is so disturbing about the Nazi party's experiments is that the officials were obviously empathetic towards the doctors morbid curiosities. Commanders not only understood the urges to know more about human anotomy, but were empathetic when responding to the letters in granting them more participants, and even congratulating them on their findings. It is almost as if since they have empathy for each other in regards to the scientific brilliance that put their patients through misery and torture; has left them with a void for empathy in regards to what their patients are going through during these experiments.

Perhaps we can learn something about madness and empathy from the mad doctors in Germany. That too much empathy in some areas of life cause a lack of empathy in the more important areas of life.

Bad Medicine

While reading the required class text I was extremely disturbed by the lack of respect doctors had for other human beings.  No human being has the right to determine who is “allowed” to live or die.  And no human being has the right to infringe on another’s autonomy; ones intrinsic privilege to self govern.  I would consider these “doctors” to be mad because of their lack of concern for the wellbeing of their patients.  A doctor should protect the patient from harm, not inflict it.

The Euthanasia Project in Germany was appalling and grotesque.  The theory of a superior race dominating and exploiting an inferior race is terrifying; yet Hitler was able to dominate Germany and impose his theory of a superior race.  Nazi race politics played a major role in euthanasia experiments.

By Emelia Carter (posted by Dr. Renzi on her behalf)

Nazi Eugenics

While reading the selection for class, the section on the reasons for conducting the scientific eugenic experiments really struck me.  Nazi doctors and scientists didn't perform these experiments or conduct the "Final Solution" because they hated the Jews, but because they thought the Jews were inferior and could better serve society if they became test subjects.  The scientists and doctors didn't think they were doing anything wrong, in fact, they thought they were helping society by getting rid of undesirable traits.  The fact that Hitler was able to conduct such a societal switch, where he could make masses of people believe that what he was doing was not only justified, but would benefit society, is incredibly impressive, but as equally terrifying.  I believe this is why Nazi Germany and Hitler were so powerful, he was able to not only physically over power people, but mentally overpower them as well. 

Bad Medicine: US Experimentation, Eugenics, & Nazi Race Politics

While reading this I couldn't believe all the things that were done to terminally ill patients. In the reading it says that most the experiments they were doing they would only do on corpses because of the pain it caused. Just because someone is terminally ill and they are going to die soon doesn't give anyone any right to do experiments on them or that they feel any less pain than a healthy person would. I would consider these "doctors" to be madmen because they don't seem to have any concerns about the patient and can just use a mallet to drive needles into a person to get bone marrow or put six inch needles in their livers. They only cared about the research they needed and not the patient.

The euthanasia project was absolutely absurd. I can't believe that people thought they had the right to say who was allowed to live. The fact that the doctors were called death doctors and had gas vans just shows how wrong it all was. Doctors are supposed to take care of people and help them get better if they are sick not bring death upon people.


Anna Bunge

A Brighter Side?

The whole euthanasia project in Germany was awful. No one has the right to chose who deserves to lives.When it had began, it included the killing of inferior non-Germans as well as Germans. The mass killing of thousands of people was done "for the greater good" but that was just a justification for killing people.

It can be debated that there was a bright side to this though. "The euthanasia of inferior German types was the only part of the sprawling race hygiene/eugenics programme to be halted..." (page 385). Even though the German's still killed lots of "inferior" people, they stopped from killing a few of the Germans who were thought of as inferior in the minds of others.

However, they only stopped killing those who were Nazi loyalists. It was a step in the right direction for the Germans. Less were being killed due to the belief that they were inferior and more people were safe from harm in Germany. I am not trying to justify the Holocaust, but there was a slight happy ending for some people during this time.

Signed,
Samantha Brown

Crossing the line between doctor and criminal

Denis grew up in a lower class than most doctors and somehow found his way into this life. He now is preforming and experiment with the wealthy with blood transfusions. The two doctors, Denis and Emmerez, are experimenting on an unwilling, low class, supposedly "madman". I feel like they choose him because they could. They used their power of class and money to do their experiment for the wrong reasons. They wanted the fame, to be the first to preform this experiment. They did not care about the patient who was unwilling in the first place and soon died after the experiment was over.

This story shows how there is a fine line that doctors may be willing to cross in order to further their knowledge or become published. I feel like this line is considered even today. Doctors have to be careful with how far they are willing to go. There may be times where the science itself is favored over the patient when it should never be.

Mad Doctors in The Debt

In the first half of the movie The Debt, we are introduced to our "mad doctor" character Dr. Bernhardt. He works as a fertility doctor in Berlin and our three main characters have been assigned to take him back to Israel to take punishment for his crimes in the Holocaust. As with some of the doctors studied in class he is an old man in a lab coat with somewhat crazy hair and an evil demeanor. He is very smart as seen when he has suspicions about Rachel's intentions. He asks her a lot of questions about her past to make sure his identity is kept a secret.
This doctor is a fictional recreation of one of the many Nazi doctors from our class readings. There was a movement in sterilizing "undesirables" so that they did not pass on their genes to the next generation.
One thing that seemed to take Rachel by surprise is when she inserted the needle into the doctor to take him out, his wife ran in. She seemed to think that these doctors were evil to the core and could in no way form a healthy relationship but Mrs. Bernhardt was very upset when her husband was taken to the hospital. It makes sense that Rachel would be surprised because most of the Doctors at the Nuremberg  seemed to think that they were not at fault for such monstrosities which would indicate that they were somewhat mad themselves.

The Debt

I found the ambiguity of the first half of this film very interesting in terms of its relationship with the material we are learning. We are aware of the three undercover agents that are in Berlin on a top secret mission. And we are also aware of the criminal that they are after; a doctor that examines Rachel and is suspected of Nazi related medical experimentation on Jews. But no particular experiments or unethical human testing has been exposed to us yet, and all we have so far to base judgment on him now, is his demeanor. His persona so far fits that of a mad doctor. He presents a creepy but professional front when he is examining Rachel and these traits resemble another medical madman that we studied: Josef Mengele. It is interesting how this film uses this doctor to sort of represent Mengele. He seems caring and considerate, but is a man that has utilized his power to exploit people that are vulnerable. It is also interesting to me how the filmmakers choose to send the character Rachel in for infertility testing. They could have made the character go in for check-ups, or for limb pains, or other common illnesses. But her being tested for infertility, combined with the doctor’s threatening and creepy nature, provides for an atmosphere of sexual tension and violation. The fact that this doctor, who we know is guilty of medical crimes, and who is already creepy enough, is consistently examining Rachel in an inappropriate place enhances this character’s madness. There are many elements playing in this doctor’s character and it will be very interesting to find out the particular experiments he performed, and the overall fate of this fiend.

By: Jake Baldwin