↓ Skip to main content

A long shadow: Nazi doctors, moral vulnerability and contemporary medical culture

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Ethics, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 3,703)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
345 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A long shadow: Nazi doctors, moral vulnerability and contemporary medical culture
Published in
Journal of Medical Ethics, May 2012
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2011-100372
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandra Colaianni

Abstract

More than 7% of all German physicians became members of the Nazi SS during World War II, compared with less than 1% of the general population. In so doing, these doctors willingly participated in genocide, something that should have been antithetical to the values of their chosen profession. The participation of physicians in torture and murder both before and after World War II is a disturbing legacy seldom discussed in medical school, and underrecognised in contemporary medicine. Is there something inherent in being a physician that promotes a transition from healer to murderer? With this historical background in mind, the author, a medical student, defines and reflects upon moral vulnerabilities still endemic to contemporary medical culture.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 345 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 14%
Student > Master 10 13%
Other 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 19 25%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 38%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Philosophy 5 6%
Psychology 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 17 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 281. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2024.
All research outputs
#128,956
of 25,816,430 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#35
of 3,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#517
of 176,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#1
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,816,430 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 176,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.