Human Experimentation

[Leader Bee]

During the war years there were several experiments involving the inmates at Auschwitz, ranging from experiments on twins, toxic gas exposure and hypothermia.

 

While it's quite clear that this is unethical due to the inmates being innocent of any crimes it's also undeniable that these experiments were of value - Most of modern medicines understanding of the effects of and how to treat hypothermia came directly from these experiments.

 

What are peoples views on the experiments conducted there? Would it be anymore acceptable to people if instead of innocent and unwilling captives if people convicted of crimes / sentenced to capital punishment were automatically selected for live experimentation instead of just wasting a resource by leathal injection - human experimentation clearly has it's value and this seems the most legitimate way we could justify it.

[insane_alien]

well, the experiments were horrible, even if you take out the emotional factor, a lot of them were not performed with suitible scientific rigor so that data is not so good.

 

but, i don't think we should discard any conclusions as that would be insulting to the people who died. at least by using the data gathered, their legacy lives on and can save many more people.

 

as for experimentation today, the people being experimented on should be volunteers, even if they have been sentenced to death as unknown consequences could be considered torture, and no living being should have to suffer it if it can be avoided.

 

but if they understand the risks and still want to do it, perhaps for sentence reduction in the case of a convict, then there shouldn't be a problem.

 

of course there will be lots of issues regarding the event of an experiment failure where someone dies, or is left with a permanent disability or so on, but thats for people more well versed in law than me.

[Leader Bee]

So if someone is on death row they should be given an option of lethal injection or "benefit to humanity via the means of vivisection"?

 

As long as they sign a consent form there should be no legal troubles from any i'll effects sustained afterwards. I don't see why there should be any trouble if there are complications that arise from any experiments as the experiment is there to discover an outcome anyway... We wouldn't know what to expect until we have the result.

[John Cuthber]

The question presupposes that the death penalty is acceptable.

Civilised societies have decided that it isn't.

[DJBruce]

The question presupposes that the death penalty is acceptable.

Civilised societies have decided that it isn't.

 

Are:

 

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Illinois

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wyoming

 

all uncivilized societies then?

 

As for experimenting on human beings I feel like it is only acceptable if first no other option exists. If another option doesn't then the experiment should be designed in such a way that it limits the potential harm and suffering to the volunteer. Notice I said volunteer regardless if whether or not a person is a convicted criminal they should not be forced to participate in any study.

[John Cuthber]

Are:

 

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Illinois

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wyoming

 

all uncivilized societies then?

 

 

Yes, because they kill people.

[Leader Bee]

As for experimenting on human beings I feel like it is only acceptable if first no other option exists. If another option doesn't then the experiment should be designed in such a way that it limits the potential harm and suffering to the volunteer. Notice I said volunteer regardless if whether or not a person is a convicted criminal they should not be forced to participate in any study.

 

If limiting the harm was to make certain results unobtainable ( say we were testing a new drug for soldiers that inhibits pain / increases pain tolerances & endurance ) then how do we measure those results if pain and suffering are sidestepped?

 

I imagine the majority of responses to this thread will be of the "it's simply unethical" party, what if someone simply volunteered simply for the good of mankind (however stupid that might be) to test these drugs and be subject to being shot, beaten, frozen, burned... Would it make it ethical if it was the subjects choice out of their own free will?

[DJBruce]

If limiting the harm was to make certain results unobtainable ( say we were testing a new drug for soldiers that inhibits pain / increases pain tolerances & endurance ) then how do we measure those results if pain and suffering are sidestepped?

 

I imagine the majority of responses to this thread will be of the "it's simply unethical" party, what if someone simply volunteered simply for the good of mankind (however stupid that might be) to test these drugs and be subject to being shot, beaten, frozen, burned... Would it make it ethical if it was the subjects choice out of their own free will?

 

I highly doubt that there is any medical experiment where some degree of pain and suffering cannot be eliminated. If for example you are testing something that inhibits pain, could you not measure without doing the most painful thing to the volunteer imaginable? Probably.

 

If a person volunteers willfully then it is not unethical. However, the volunteer must be in a stable mindset, and be well informed of everything that might/will happen to them in the study. Even after this it would be up to the researcher to limit any unnecessary pain and discomfort for the volunteer from the experiment.

[John Cuthber]

People regularly volunteer to do things that are risky; sometimes for their own benefit, sometimes for the greater common good. That's all fine and ethical.

 

Cold bloodedly forcing people into taking risks is unethical.

 

It's difficult to rule out some measure of coercion if you are talking about captives who are condemned to death. The point's moot anyway since the death penalty isn't ethical.

[ewmon]

A friend of mine who suffered paralysis once participated (after the paralysis, and as a teenager) in a study where scientists put him in a cold bath and monitored how his core temperature trended. Brain-dead people could be used for such studies, and without hurting "anyone"; however, it would be horribly unethical.

 

Even relatively mild experiments from the past could never be performed again.

• Phil Zimbardo's Stanford prison study
  
• Stanley Milgram's experiment on obedience to authority figures
  
• Jane Elliott's insidious blue-eyed/brown-eyed experiment

[Genecks]

During the war years there were several experiments involving the inmates at Auschwitz, ranging from experiments on twins, toxic gas exposure and hypothermia.

 

While it's quite clear that this is unethical due to the inmates being innocent of any crimes it's also undeniable that these experiments were of value - Most of modern medicines understanding of the effects of and how to treat hypothermia came directly from these experiments.

 

What are peoples views on the experiments conducted there? Would it be anymore acceptable to people if instead of innocent and unwilling captives if people convicted of crimes / sentenced to capital punishment were automatically selected for live experimentation instead of just wasting a resource by leathal injection - human experimentation clearly has it's value and this seems the most legitimate way we could justify it.

 

If there are any inmates with a death sentence of a life-sentence and those inmates have HIV, then it might be within the inmates' interests to have gene therapy conducted on them. As more have been found about genes that allow people to resist HIV, it would be suitable to test those inmates. However, only under their permission; furthermore, they have to be explained the science behind what will be going on and what could go wrong.

 

Truth be, this would be more of a special treatment to them rather than a rude guinea pig experiment. It would extend their lives. Furthermore, it would be a population that was going to die anyway (and faster than normal without treatment).

[jimmydasaint]

Leader Bee, I am sorry but the OP is unethical in what it is suggesting. Are you saying that you would give alleged killers an opportunity to opt for possible pain and discomfort in scientific experimentation or instant death? What do you think they would choose? In fact, what would you choose?

 

Even in the last century, conscious human beings were used as experimental subjects, sometimes without their knowledge or consent. The problem arises when the experimenter perceives himself/herself as 'superior' to the experimental subject. IMHO, the shameful Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment is an example.

 

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.

Link

 

Also

1990

 

More than 1500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. The Center for Disease Control later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.

 

The FDA grants Department of Defense waiver of Nuremberg Code for use of unapproved drugs and vaccines in Desert Shield.

 

Link

 

A person who perceives himself/herself as superior, or who is ordered to cruel treatment by an 'authority' figure can cause mayhem and murder in a grand scale. Why do you think humans in the Iraqi Abu Ghraib prison were tortured?

 

If we, as human beings, have any responsibility or role in this planet, it should be to free us all from poverty, pain and misery, and to guard the integrity of a planet which can only go so far in recovering from the onslaughts of the human race. To even suggest that people 'with nothing to lose' volunteer to sacrifice themselves when their own self-serving egos got them in a mess in the first place is asking a bit much, surely.