Ethical questions arising from Otfrid Foerster's use of the Sherrington method to map human dermatomes.

Otfrid Foerster (1873-1941) is well known for his maps of human dermatomes. We have examined the history of the development of his protocols for mapping dermatomes by analyzing his lectures and publications from 1908 to 1939, focusing on his Schorstein Memorial Lecture in 1932 and his use of the isolation (Sherrington) method, in which a single dorsal root is spared in a sequence of resections (dorsal rhizotomies). Because of the absence of medical records for Foerster's patients, we also review eyewitness accounts of his operating technique, his occasional comments on patients, and the issue of consent. There appears to be no medical justification-at that time or currently-for Foerster's use of the Sherrington method to map dermatomes L1, L5, S1, and S2, and in our view, these results were obtained unethically. Hence, clinicians and researchers who use his maps should acknowledge those whom Foerster exploited in order to produce them.

Errant corporations, diffuse responsibilities, and the environment: ethical issues in the Orica case study.

The papers in this volume deal with various aspects of the HCB legacy at the Orica plant at Botany. Whether explicitly or implicitly, they are concerned with questions of ethics; with the just distribution of burdens and benefits; with just processes for disposing of dangerous industrial waste; and with a just custodianship of the Botany environment. These ethical issues illustrate the difficulty of securing corporate accountability, and the elusiveness of responsibility within organisations. This paper reflects on some of the issues for ethics raised by the Orica case and their significance for corporate ethics.

Apologizing for the past: German science and Nazi medicine.

Recently, religious organisations, governments and public institutions have begun to offer apologies for historical wrongs. Can they legitimately do so? Departing from the tendency, Professor Hubert Markl, President of the Max Planck Society, has offered strong reasons for not apologizing for the crimes of medical scientists who experimented on human subjects during the Nazi era. He argues that only the perpetrators can meaningfully apologize. Markl's position is considered and rejected in favour of the view that apologies by proxy for historical wrongs are justifiable and should be made by institutions that have the authority to do so.