Medical experiments on prisoners....

[Michele]

What do you think of that idea? Should convicted felons be used as lab rats for pharmaceutical companies? What about as lab rats for new surgical procedures?

[emilina]

NO.

[mom2burgess]

Not unless they are willing to volunteer for it.

[Jory]

If it will save a rat, monkey, bunny, etc. then I am all for it. Depending on the crime of course. Rapists, child molesters, and murderers should get the harshest most painful experiments.

[Echo2]

It is wrong to experiment on ANY LIVING CREATURE. No matter how many legs it has or how awfull it's behavior has been in the past.

IMO If torture is wrong, it is wrong. No matter what nationality someone is, what they have done in the past or weather they are wearing a uniform or not. One either believes it is morally wrong or not. I don't believe their should be exceptions to morality.

[karaokeguy]

Can we do medical experiments on Prisoner?? ;)

[GracieMae]

Can we do medical experiments on Prisoner?? ;)

Prisoner IS a medical experiment :howling:

To answer the OP no...never!

[mom2burgess]

It is wrong to experiment on ANY LIVING CREATURE. No matter how many legs it has or how awfull it's behavior has been in the past.

IMO If torture is wrong, it is wrong. No matter what nationality someone is, what they have done in the past or weather they are wearing a uniform or not. One either believes it is morally wrong or not. I don't believe their should be exceptions to morality.
A bit off topic to the OP, but if experimenting on animals creates a cure for cancer, or AIDS, I am all for it.

[Beelzebub]

A bit off topic to the OP, but if experimenting on animals creates a cure for cancer, or AIDS, I am all for it.

I would feel the same if it were a prionser.

[Prisoner]

Not unless they are willing to volunteer for it.
Ditto!

[mle30]

After all, pharmaceutical companies, NIH grants, etc do human trials on drugs/procedures as part of submitting said drug/procedure to the FDA. These people VOLUNTEER, and get paid for their time and inconvenience. Trust me - I've known many a college student who got extra money this way. Not to mention the cancer and AIDS patients filling up the waiting list for new drug trials.

So what would the big deal be with letting prisoners volunteer for studies? You could say that it's an unfair burden, and could imply some sense of being coerced into the study... but couldn't you say the same for a poor college student (that he was 'coerced' into taking money for participating in a study)?

Since it's already in practice, why not let it be in practice "behind bars" as well?

[Echo2]

By the time a product or procedure is to the point of testing on humans it has gone through years of scrupulous testing. It is considered that we know it to be harmless up to the point of actually testing it on a human body to find out. In other words, many non human creatures have already been tortured for it to get to the point of trying it out on human volunteers.

The only problem I see with allowing prisoners to volunteer for this is the perception of coersion.

I'm sorry to see that some people on this board consider human life to be of greater value than non human life.


mom2burgess quote - A bit off topic to the OP, but if experimenting on animals creates a cure for cancer, or AIDS, I am all for it.

Beezlbub - Quote: "I would feel the same if it were a prionser.

"Since the Nuremberg trials, our society has had to confront the reality that the Nazi doctors were guilty of premeditated murder masqueraded as research. Professional modern medicine has had little difficulty condemning the Nazi doctors as evil men. But what is being said of the continued use of the Nazi doctors' medical research? Many scholars are now discovering in reputable medical literature multiple references to Nazi experiments, or republished works of former SS doctors. In recent years several scientists who have sought to use the Nazi research have attracted and stirred widespread soul-searching about the social responsibility and potential abuses of science."

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html
There are many articles on this subject. This is just one.

[Mabel]

No. Never.

[OnederWoman]

I'm sorry to see that some people on this board consider human life to be of greater value than non human life. In general, yes. Specifically, depends on the human/s.

As for the original question, only if they volunteer, I don't believe it should be forced.

[mle30]

As someone who has worked in the pharmaceutical industry, I'm well aware of the FDA standards for testing drugs. For example, before clinical trials, two rounds of drug/toxicology testing must be done - one rodent and one non-rodent animal model. The rodent model is usually mice or guinea pigs, and the non-rodent model is usually beagles or pot-bellied pigs.

I know there are many who believe that all life is equally precious, and therefore should not be subjected to testing of any kind. And, it is also easy to look upon medical testing on animals as villainous or cruel.

I do not believe this is the case. As someone directly involved with animal testing, I can attest to the fact that RIGOROUS protocols and qualifying paperwork are required to gain approval of every procedure. The priorities are as follows: First, you must prove an artificial or 'virtual' model cannot be used. Then, you must qualify the level of testing you need, ranging from 0 (no procedures at all; you only need to observe them (usually when geneticists are gathering statistics on genetic abberations, and need to characterize them as either dominant/recessive/sex-linked etc), 1 (mild stress - behavioral studies that will make the animal uncomfortable, or minimal physical pain, such as clipping ears with ID tags, or ingesting drugs), 2 (non-invasive surgical procedures with anesthetic - such as clipping tails for DNA extraction/RNA extraction, clipping toes, bleeding eyes or tails, 3 (invasive surgical procedures with anesthesia or non-surgical procedures with moderate discomfort - i.e., harvesting ovaries, inducing rashes presumably to be tested with new product). Level 4 - severe discomfort or surgical procedures without anesthetic - are (like all the other levels) only approved if it can be proven that no other type of testing can prove efficacy, AND that there is such a need for this drug that it warrants the pain of feeling creatures.

I'm not saying that the public should be less vigilant about safeguarding our animals. On the contrary, if it weren't for public outrage at the old animal testing of cosmetics on rabbits, today's procedures would not be so strict. But for those who want a detailed discussion/base of knowledge on how we treat animal life (and I believe this is one of the most important ways to define us as a caring society) please feel free to start an information thread or PM me. I love animals, and yet I am often put in a position where I must kill them. It is not an action I take to without the most consideration for the animal life, and respect for it as a living creature. I also know that, thanks to the level 4 testing of animals, I am on medical antidepressants that could be saving my life (yes, all the antidepressants and antianxiety meds require level 4 testing).

As for the assertion that human life is as valuable as non-human life... I agree in theory. Non-human life, after all, comprises everything from bacteria to chimpanzees, and clearly, not all have equal appreciation for surroundings, feelings, pain, etc. Still, it all has the right to live, and such lifeform abundance helps us all.

The moral ground for me becomes the most murky when comparing feeling creatures to one another. And for that, I agree, human and other feeling creature life is equal in its sanctity.

I'd like to go on, but this is already too long and too OT for it's origins. Please start a new thread or PM me if you wish to continue along this vein.

Thank you,

mle30

[ehartsay]

I'm sorry to see that some people on this board consider human life to be of greater value than non human life.

A life is a life.

What's really sad is the the people who only care about someone/a child hurting /torturing animals because that might mean that he is on the road to hurting people in the future :rolleyes2

[Echo2]

1 (mild stress - make the animal uncomfortable, such as clipping ears or ingesting drugs)
2 (non-invasive surgical procedures with anesthetic - clipping tails, clipping toes, bleeding eyes or tails,
3 (invasive surgical procedures with anesthesia or non-surgical procedures with moderate discomfort - harvesting ovaries, inducing rashes
Level 4 - severe discomfort or surgical procedures without anesthetic.

Anyone that would condone this behavior on a helpless animal should have it done to themself or have to watch it being done to their children. - I know this isn't a PC oppinion but it is how I feel about the subject. As a Taoist and I believe in the connection of all life.

60 years ago humans experimented on humans "in the name of science". I don't buy the popular belief that we are better than animals and have a right to harm them to advance science.

[Lady Thatcher]

60 years ago humans experimented on humans "in the name of science". I don't buy the popular belief that we are better than animals and have a right to harm them to advance science.

Just wondering. Do you only take herbal medication 100% the time for any and everything that ails you? If you were to get cancer tomorrow, would you forfeit your usage of chemo or radiation and only use a pure holistic approach to cure yourself?

If you can't answer yes to both of those, you devalue the very thing you are trying to defend. :shrug Just a thought to ponder.

[Echo2]

My darling Jessie is fighting prostate cancer at this moment. He is choosing to use chemicals. I would not. With me it is a religious belief. I do not take medications other than the occasional aspirin. Herbal meds work great. When my daughter had cervical cancer she chose not to use chemicals and opted for surgury instead. But I think her choice was more practical than theological.

[Beelzebub]

Human life to me has value and also a price.

Some lives are worth more than others.

Violent criminals have very little value and their bodies should be used for the betterment of society. I see this as a pragmatics response.

Killing for the sake of it however, is wrong. When there is a legitimate reason then I am all for it; like medical experiments on violent prisoners.

I make no distinction between the experiment on a dog and a convicted felon, except the dog has done nothing wrong; he just fell foul to a smarter being.

[Echo2]

Ouch Beezlebub. Are you playing the devils advocate or do you really see nothing wrong with doing medical experiments on prisoners?

I assume you have compassion for humans that are not criminals. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Do you have compassion for animals at all or is it really just a matter of falling foul to a smarter being. Do you believe that people should be prosecuted for animal cruelty. Like nasty little boys that set dogs on fire of hang cats by the neck and beat them.

[Clio]

Violent criminals have very little value and their bodies should be used for the betterment of society. I see this as a pragmatics response.

Well I sure hope to hell any child you may have stays on the right side of the law. The word forgiveness seems to be missing from your vocabulary.

I make no distinction between the experiment on a dog and a convicted felon, except the dog has done nothing wrong; he just fell foul to a smarter being

Right now my 16 yr old Yorkshire Terrier who's sitting here licking his nether regions is looking a whole lot smarter than you.

Do you actually hear what you're saying? So, if Beelzebub Jr was to go apeshit some night after popping something that he as experimenting with in a nightclub, went and decided to it would be fun to set fire to an empty house, all the time being under the influence of whatever he took, you would still be of the same frame of mind?

He/She would be convicted of a serious crime, which therefore makes him/her a convicted felon just like you mentioned above.

Some lives are worth more than others.

Yup, and right now I probably wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

[Beelzebub]

Ouch Beezlebub. Are you playing the devils advocate or do you really see nothing wrong with doing medical experiments on prisoners?

I assume you have compassion for humans that are not criminals. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Do you have compassion for animals at all or is it really just a matter of falling foul to a smarter being. Do you believe that people should be prosecuted for animal cruelty. Like nasty little boys that set dogs on fire of hang cats by the neck and beat them.

I see nothing wrong with experiments on violent prisoners.

I believe this, compassion for those whom deserve it and responsibility for the responsible.

If that child was cruel to animals then he should be punished. Remember I said "Killing for the sake of it however, is wrong. When there is a legitimate reason then I am all for it; like medical experiments on violent prisoners."

So that child would be punished; however if he was mauled by that same dog then he got what he deserved.

[Beelzebub]

Well I sure hope to hell any child you may have stays on the right side of the law. The word forgiveness seems to be missing from your vocabulary.



Right now my 16 yr old Yorkshire Terrier who's sitting here licking his nether regions is looking a whole lot smarter than you.

Do you actually hear what you're saying? So, if Beelzebub Jr was to go apeshit some night after popping something that he as experimenting with in a nightclub, went and decided to it would be fun to set fire to an empty house, all the time being under the influence of whatever he took, you would still be of the same frame of mind?

He/She would be convicted of a serious crime, which therefore makes him/her a convicted felon just like you mentioned above.



Yup, and right now I probably wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

Forgiveness for what? Depends on the degree of the crime.

As for your terrier reference "sigh" if he is smarter than me I assure you he would not be throwing unprovoked insults Like yourself. So that leads me to conclude intelligence wise; I am below your dog and you are below both of us ;)

As for my son, yes he knew the consequences of his actions; responsibility to the responsible; simple logic really.

As for pissing on me while I was on fire; depends on the circumstances. If I had been playing with matches and gasoline then no, I deserve to die. However I would have thought you being the compassionate person that are, you probably would. Seems not; so who is better? You or I?

[Beelzebub]

I didn't think I would get an answer from you Clio. :sloppy:

[Clio]

If you had actually asked a question worthy of me taking several seconds from my day then I would have done so.

so who is better? You or I?


That's the only question I can find and the answer is easy. I'm the better one. I never want to see my son be treated like an animal "for the betterment of society" regardless of what crime he may have commited. You do. You wouldn't mind your child being treated like a lab rat. So, I hope you're spending more time teaching your children anger management than you spend time here becasue if they end up in prison Mommy will only too happy to seem them as lab rats helping to improve the quality of her industrial strength valium.

Violent criminals have very little value and their bodies should be used for the betterment of society

[Beelzebub]

If you had actually asked a question worthy of me taking several seconds from my day then I would have done so.



That's the only question I can find and the answer is easy. I'm the better one. I never want to see my son be treated like an animal "for the betterment of society" regardless of what crime he may have commited. You do. You wouldn't mind your child being treated like a lab rat. So, I hope you're spending more time teaching your children anger management than you spend time here becasue if they end up in prison Mommy will only too happy to seem them as lab rats helping to improve the quality of her industrial strength valium.

Shame I took the time to reply to your post- juvenile insults included.

Actually your final paragraph makes you a hypocrite; you showed your violent nature in the post above. "Yup, and right now I probably wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire." This shows your caring side? My I hope you pass on your altruistic nature to your child ;) You see the difference is, you are angry because you disagree with me; triggering violence. At least in my world life would not be wasted needlessly.

Again you are not reading what I type. I said violent criminals are fair game. The take from society; we take from them. It is as simple as that. Far better to have a violent prisoner used for the development of cures, antibiotics etc than to have them use yet more tax money to keep them alive.

As for children, well if they turn out to be rapists and serial killers I would be happy for them to give back what they took. They take life, use theirs' to potentially give life back.

[Clio]

you showed your violent nature in the post above

Care to pint out where exactly? Saying I wouldn't piss on you (which I still wouldn't) makes me violent?? Sitting on my hands while you are engulfed in flames makes me no more "violent" that you who will gladly sit by and watch a prisoner be treated as a test animal.
You seem to be reading things that aren't there.

Shame I took the time to reply to your post- juvenile insults included.


Well then why have you done it again? You just called me a hypocrite yet here you are saying you wasted time replying to my post WHILE replying to yet another post.

My I hope you pass on your altruistic nature to your child

You mentioning my child makes my skin crawl.

[kingclick]

It's also a violation of the TOS to bring children into debates if I recall. Please abstain.

[George1]

If it will save a rat, monkey, bunny, etc. then I am all for it. Depending on the crime of course. Rapists, child molesters, and murderers should get the harshest most painful experiments.

And what about the ones who are falsely convicted?

[George1]

A life is a life.

See, I wonder what people mean when they say that.
Would you interact calmly with a room full of murderers?
Would you laugh with them, chat with them, share good times and bad?
Would you seek out a forum full of mostly murderers to chat with? How about cannibals? Torturers?

And yet, this forum no doubt is full of people who have ruthlessly slaughtered hundreds of mosquitoes for merely causing them a trivial amount of pain; who have repeatedly paid money to a network ending in farmers killing livestock for food, and other livestock for clothing; some of whom owe their very existence to torture practiced on lab animals to develop drugs.

Why are those who really believe an animal's life is equivalent to a human's life, hanging around with the likes of us?

[Clio]

It's also a violation of the TOS to bring children into debates if I recall.

As much as I dislike that woman I don't think the way in which she mentioned my son was a violation. I just hate the fact a mental image of him went through her head.

[Beelzebub]

Care to pint out where exactly? Saying I wouldn't piss on you (which I still wouldn't) makes me violent?? Sitting on my hands while you are engulfed in flames makes me no more "violent" that you who will gladly sit by and watch a prisoner be treated as a test animal.
You seem to be reading things that aren't there.



Well then why have you done it again? You just called me a hypocrite yet here you are saying you wasted time replying to my post WHILE replying to yet another post.



You mentioning my child makes my skin crawl.

Actually you are more violent because you would let me burn for no reason. Violent prisoners would be used for the benefit of society. Difference is, my life would be wasted ;); the criminals' would not.


I posted again to correct your assumption about my proposal.


You mentioning children in general makes me laugh. You bring it up I shall reply; it as simple as that.

[kingclick]

As much as I dislike that woman I don't think the way in which she mentioned my son was a violation. I just hate the fact a mental image of him went through her head.
Ok. Thanks. I take it back then. Admittedly I haven't been following this thread. The idea of testing on humans is so preposterous to me that I didn't even think anyone would be for it.

[Beelzebub]

As much as I dislike that woman I don't think the way in which she mentioned my son was a violation. I just hate the fact a mental image of him went through her head.

You brought children into this my dear lady, but I thank you for correcting the mod.

And for the record I believe you should read my sig, I dont dislike you either. You just have a firey temper :smooch:

[Clio]

Don't call me "dear lady", I'm neither and it's truly condascending.

[Beelzebub]

Don't call me "dear lady", I'm neither and it's truly condascending.

Was not my intention to be condescending, and I apologise :)

Just to help remind everyone you brought children into this, not I.

[Beelzebub]

Ok. Thanks. I take it back then. Admittedly I haven't been following this thread. The idea of testing on humans is so preposterous to me that I didn't even think anyone would be for it.


Preposterous, but potentially beneficial.

[George1]

Just to help remind everyone you brought children into this, not I.

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen. Just as we were discussing in another thread. Another case where the woman gets custody of the children.




:) :) Just a joke, just a joke! Put down the torches and pitchforks! :) :)

[Beelzebub]

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen. Just as we were discussing in another thread. Another case where the woman gets custody of the children.




:) :) Just a joke, just a joke! Put down the torches and pitchforks! :) :)

hahaha
:smooch: