Using humans for research

[StageLeft]

I voted yes. Basically these people will end up either as criminals or killed probably in drug manners/accidents, etc. so the benefits they could offer to a society that otherwise has no need for them outweight the ethical consquences, IMO. Now, that said, I'm being facetious of course and I voted yes as a joke. I can only hope most of the other yeses were for the same reason (I've not read the thread yet).

 

[Wheezer]

Everybody has feelings and emotions

i think you better brush up on your psychology.

This is not always the case, that is why many serial killers exist, the have no emotion or empathy when it comes to other human beings.

Other people are just a means to an end.

Those that kill others out of an uncontrollable urge (especially repeat child killers) should be given the choice, experimentation or the death penalty.

 

[ericlp]

It's already happening. Some people make a living being a ginipig and drug companies love them. They also test drugs in poor countries you know to see what kind of side effects they may have?

I agree with the posters here about chimps, if they can test on them why not test on humans? I think death row inmates should volunteer for free. I also believe if you have an advanced stage of say aids and you want to try out new drugs then that option should be available to you.

I voted Yes...I dunno about 'children' why should we use unwanted children? I think most people would vote no for that issue alone.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Journer
so, lets say there is a company who takes unwanted children or procures people in some manner. they then use those people for all kinds of experiments that are generally considered inhumane. for example, you could confine people to different constant environments and add in the variable to monitor the outcome. You could determine the true effects of second hand smoke, nuclear effects, etc. All of the tests are performed strictly for scientific research to further humanity (disease, etc.) and no testing would be done for purposes of war. Keep in mind though, these people are kept in the research facility their entire life and are experimented on until their usefulness has diminished.


Would the inevitable scientific breakthroughs that would lead to the end of certain diseases and other issues outweigh the costs of dehumanizing the people who are in the facility?

Discuss.

Yes, but not with children. I say take some of the child molestors from the streets and let the testing begin.

Fixed

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I'd rather [violent crime offenders] suffer from an experiment gone wrong...

You realize of course that this makes you just as bad, if not worse than, the criminals you seek to dehumanize?

Not really, in order for a society to remain safe there has to be a system of laws and order. When a person violates those laws and can no longer be trusted to be a part of society then he or she must be controlled so that other law abiding citizens can be protected from people who have no regard for society.

Why is it so hard for some to accept that people are people? Ya know, everyone, even the ones you don't like or agree with.. they're all people, just like you or me. Everybody has feelings and emotions and everyone has their shit, good and bad. I'm not encouraging everyone to be a hippy and saying lets replace pound-me-in-the-ass prison with hugs and flowers.. Of course there still needs to be punishment and justice and law and order must be maintained.

I agree every has their own thing to contend with, but when that thing interferes with the safety of others then they have to be removed or isolated. In the case of violent offenders and killers, it would make more sense to put these people to a productive use (experimentation) than just tossing them in the chair or on the table for lethal injection. And by experimentation I don't mean torture, but perhaps high risk experiments that the average person would not submit to.

I'd just like it if we didn't have to go around dehumanizing those which we don't agree with in order to excuse imposing suffering on them.

I'm not condoning dehumanizing people with different outlooks or petty criminals but rather people who have demonstrated that they are unfit to live in society (repeat rapists, killers, child molestors, etc..).

None of that matters because using humans as test subjects (I suppose it would depend on what kind of test we're talking about here though) would probably fall under cruel and unusual punishment, which is made illegal by the 8th amendment.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Journer
sanorski: why?

naddicott: interesting

arkitech: i'm not advocating killing anyone. I'm saying that if experiments are going to be performed on humans, why not someone who has never had the experiences of human life? It is not to say they will always be children. You could raise them and test on them when they were older.

mxyzplk: agreed, clones would be great for disease testing and transplants. but lets leave religion out of this.


here is an example if you don't get what i'm saying:
you have some scientists that want to do some controller research on something, i dunno, lets say the effects of chemical A on a person over a period of 5 years. Now, you can do that now, but in a controlled environment, there are far less variables to worry about and the outcome would be closer to exact. So, the firm gets an already born, unwanted child. They are not mean to it, they don't starve it, but they do keep it away from all the variables (possibly other people, or societies, or some type of food, or force it to exercise more) etc. They do there tests and afterwards it possibly used for later tests that require a similar environment.

Why??

It is inhumane to start with. That's about all the justification needed. We have people who are mature and willing to try experiments and that's fine, but what you are proposing is a world of pain that begins with supposedly the unwanted. It will expand beyond that though, especially in the Third World where there are far fewer protections against abuse.

 

[spaceman]

absolutely not.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Journer
so, lets say there is a company who takes unwanted children or procures people in some manner. they then use those people for all kinds of experiments that are generally considered inhumane. for example, you could confine people to different constant environments and add in the variable to monitor the outcome. You could determine the true effects of second hand smoke, nuclear effects, etc. All of the tests are performed strictly for scientific research to further humanity (disease, etc.) and no testing would be done for purposes of war. Keep in mind though, these people are kept in the research facility their entire life and are experimented on until their usefulness has diminished.


Would the inevitable scientific breakthroughs that would lead to the end of certain diseases and other issues outweigh the costs of dehumanizing the people who are in the facility?

Discuss.

I would have serious ethical and moral issues with this.

 

[eplebnista]

Yes.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

This isn't even a question. Absolutely not. If people volunteer to be tested on, fine. I might even support testing on inmates who were on death row or lifers, preferably with their permission as well. But just picking orphans to experiment on? That goes against every principle of scientific ethics we have.

 

[miketheidiot]

how is yes winning?