Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
An RCR or IRB training module citing the Doctors' Trial specifically for the principle that following institutional or superior orders is not a defense to conducting unethical research on human subjects -- a distinct lesson from the Nuremberg Code's own ten enumerated requirements.
- Is an instance
A research-ethics history overview distinguishing the trial (the 1946-47 tribunal, its defendants, and its verdict) from the Nuremberg Code (the resulting ten-point statement on permissible experimentation), noting the Code is what the trial's judgment produced rather than a separate, independently-adopted instrument.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
Using "the Nuremberg Trials" to refer to this proceeding without qualification is imprecise -- the Doctors' Trial was one of twelve "Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings" held by US military tribunals after the original International Military Tribunal (which tried Göring and other top Nazi leadership) concluded in 1946; conflating the two obscures that this specific trial addressed medical war crimes.
- Not an instance
Citing the Nuremberg Code's text as if it were adopted by an international body or medical association is a mistake -- unlike the World Medical Association's Declaration of Geneva or Declaration of Helsinki, the Code has no independent adopting authority; it is a passage within this tribunal's judicial verdict and carried no direct legal enforcement mechanism of its own.
Editorial commentary
The Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial — formally United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al. — was the first of the twelve “Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings,” an American military tribunal that tried 23 defendants (20 physicians and 3 administrators) from December 1946 to August 1947 for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed under Nazi Germany. It is distinct from the Nuremberg Code, which is the ten-point ethical statement the tribunal’s judgment produced — this term covers the trial itself: the defendants, the charges, the evidence, and the verdict.
The defendants and the charges
Lead defendant Karl Brandt was Adolf Hitler’s personal physician and a senior Reich health official. The indictment, brought before the tribunal under chief counsel Brigadier General Telford Taylor, charged the defendants on counts including conspiracy, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, for two categories of conduct: organizing and executing the Aktion T4 program that killed institutionalized people with disabilities, and conducting non-consensual, frequently fatal medical experiments on concentration-camp prisoners.
The experiments at issue
The evidence at trial documented experiments including high-altitude and decompression testing, induced hypothermia and freezing studies, deliberate infection with malaria and other pathogens, exposure to mustard gas, forced ingestion of seawater, and bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration and transplantation procedures — conducted on prisoners who could not refuse and who suffered severe injury, permanent disability, and death as a direct result.
Verdict and the Nuremberg Code
The tribunal delivered its judgment on August 19-20, 1947: 16 of the 23 defendants were convicted, 7 were sentenced to death and executed on June 2, 1948, several others received prison terms, and 7 were acquitted. The judgment’s section addressing permissible medical experimentation became known separately as the Nuremberg Code — its first point holds that the voluntary, informed consent of the human subject is “absolutely essential” for any experiment, the conceptual origin point for informed-consent requirements in every research-ethics framework that followed, including the Belmont Report and the Common Rule.
Why the trial and the Code are cited separately
Research-ethics and IRB training materials frequently cite “Nuremberg” as shorthand for both the historical atrocity and the resulting consent principle, but they are not interchangeable references. The trial is cited for what happens when medical authority operates entirely outside consent and independent oversight, and as the founding case for the idea that following superiors’ orders is not a defense to conducting unethical research. The Code is cited specifically for its normative content — the ten enumerated requirements a study must meet. A page or discussion that cites only the Code’s text without the trial’s facts, or only the trial’s facts without the Code’s requirements, is telling half the story.
References
- United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “The Doctors Trial: The Medical Case of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings,” Holocaust Encyclopedia.
- Shuster, Evelyne, “American Doctors at the Nuremberg Medical Trial,” American Journal of Public Health 88, no. 11 (1998): 1691-1699.
- Nuremberg Trials Project, Harvard Law School Library, “NMT Case 1: The Medical Case.”
- Marrus, Michael R., “The Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial in Historical Context,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 73, no. 1 (1999): 106-123.
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/nuremberg-doctors-trial" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/nuremberg-doctors-trial",
"name": "Nuremberg Doctors' Trial",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/nuremberg-doctors-trial",
"description": "The Nuremberg Doctors' Trial (United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al.) was the first of the twelve \"Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings,\" an American military tribunal held in Nuremberg, Germany from December 1946 to August 1947, which tried 23 defendants -- 20 physicians and 3 administrators, led by Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician -- for conspiracy, war crimes, and crimes against humanity arising from the Aktion T4 involuntary-euthanasia program and non-consensual, frequently fatal medical experiments (including high-altitude, hypothermia, malaria, mustard gas, and seawater studies) on concentration-camp prisoners. The tribunal's August 1947 judgment convicted 16 defendants, sentenced 7 to death, and acquitted 7; its section on permissible human experimentation became known separately as the Nuremberg Code, whose first point establishes voluntary informed consent as absolutely essential. The trial itself -- the defendants, charges, evidence, and verdict -- is a genuinely distinct reference point from the Code's normative text, which the tribunal's judgment produced but which is cited on its own terms.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/compliance-regulatory#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/nuremberg-doctors-trial",
"sameAs": [],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"author": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#editorial-team"
},
"datePublished": "2026-09-01T00:40:44",
"dateModified": "2026-09-01T00:40:44",
"inLanguage": "en-GB",
"isAccessibleForFree": true
}
