Does it matter what kind of crime they’ve committed? Should there be any limits to what kind of experiments non-prison inmates can volunteer for?
Do you think there’s anything wrong with paying poor people to participate in dangerous medical experiments that might benefit society? How “dangerous” is too dangerous? The video below discusses prisoners at Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia who were used as medical guinea pigs between the 1951 and the 1974. Allen Hornblum, author of the 2007 book, Sentenced to Science, and Yusef Anthony, a former prison test subject, recount this hidden history.
I think the large majority inmates are capable of giving informed conset. Therefore, if they want to i see no reason why any of them shouldn't be allowed to volunteer. Paying poor peopke to do it is another story. If someone's desperate enough they would do almost anything. I don't think that taking advantage of someone's desperate situation is very fair or right. I think medical testing should be strictly voluntary.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the statement that prisoners are a "vulnerable population unable to give informed consent"; however, I do believe some regulations limiting the kinds of testing prisoners should go through should be considered. Criminals should not be allowed to participate in any potentially dangerous experiment without a proper psychological evaluation to ensure that they are in a correct state of mind for testing.
ReplyDeletePaying poor people to participate in dangerous medical testing is not morally correct. Poor people should not have to consider doing such act out of desperation. There should always be an alternative.
Allon Gillispie
I think if these prisoners can commit the crimes they committed, then they can certainly take steps to pay back their debt to society in ways such as this. If they had the capacity to steal, or murder, or cheat then they most definately have the capacity to voluntarily participate in these trials. I think forced trials are immoral, although I think they could be used as a form of punishment as an alternative to the death penalty, but they still must be given the choice of "guaranteed death by lethal injection, firing squad, etc..., or possible death by various drug testings" that normally wouldn't be tested on humans otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Kruz. If they were sane enough to decide to commit their respective crime then they are sane enough to volunteer to be tested on.
ReplyDeleteKarli Plunkett
During the Vietnam War (and previous wars), military service in the United States was compulsory if you were drafted. Consequently, those who served the nation as soldiers during these conflicts represented a fairly diverse section of the population. Since the United States has transitioned to an all-volunteer army, those who serve have been more likely to be drawn from the poor, the working class, and racial minorities. Some believe that this puts an unfair burden on the poor and working class. Some might argue that running medical experiments strictly on those who volunteer also puts an unfair burden on the poor and working class. Serving in the military and undergoing some kind of medical experiment both involve some kind of risk and both potentially benefit the larger community. How would you respond to someone who made such a proposal?
ReplyDelete