Poll: Should prison inmates be used in pharmaceutical trials?

[moretimethansense]

Only with consent, but perhaps we could replace the death penalty with forced drug trials.
The way it is now they spend ten years on death row costing huge sums of money then they die, this way they live longer but are helping society.
Of course if they're found out to be innocent later they should be given adequete compensation.

I suppose you could have an elective drug trial system for long timers as well, help in possibly dangerous drug trials to get your sentance reduced somewhat.

EDIT

No. Prisoners have the same human rights as everybody else, no matter what the crime. The second we take those rights away we become as bad as they are, if not worse.

I assume you are against the death sentance then?
If not you're kind of a hypocrite but, if this was used as a replacement for the death penalty rather than for just any random criminal would you feel different?

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

I guess some prisoners could be offered some sort of deal (sentence reduction) in exchange of being used in those trials. It would obviously need their consent. They have rights, they are people.

And for that same reson, they should be given the choice that could get them out of jail earlier. Look at it kind of like "community service". (And yeah, i know they´re different concepts, i´m just comparing them). They´d be trying to make the world a better place and therefore seeking to redeem themselves...

 

[higgs20]

they should be allowed to, but not forced to, regardless of imprisonment they still have human rights. but if they want to cut a deal for extra dessert or something then i have no problem with that, just like i have no problem with people out in the bright shiny world whoring themselves out to their nearest pharmaceutical test centre.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

On a volunteer basis only. There are too many people in prison for victimless crimes to use them as fodder for experiments, cheap labor forces, or whatever other crazy thing we can concoct for them.

 

[ace_of_something]

[HEADING=2]No.[/HEADING]

Not for any moral or legal reason, my reasoning is the practicality.

Too many of them especially those in Prison (not a jail. It's different look it up i'm not your damn search engine) tend to have... "interesting" lives before they end up in prison.

The amount of them that are suffering from permanent side-effectvs illegal, legal drug abuse, and sexually transmitted disease are staggering or exercising incorrectly and vigorously to the point they damage their own bodies. The amount of junk food they eat and a general inability to follow directions (something essential to the drug trial process) In addition even when inmates are given mundane meds like folic acid they will still use every slight-of-hand, palming, false-drop, or cheeking technique they can think of to hide the pill to take later and/or sell it.

Not to mention the incredibly litigious nature of the corrections system currently. Did you know a warden's number 1 job is usually described as 'reducing lawsuits' anymore? (security being second that's the line job) No matter how many forms you'll have those guys sign well... a lot of them are pretty dumb. So they'll still try to hire a lawyer if they don't like the results of the trial.

It's a minefield.

Trust me I worked in a jail for 2 long-ass years.

 

[Slippers]

I'm not a lad who believes that prisons are "Correctional facilities", I'm the type of person who considers it to be a "Punishment facility". By extension, if you yourself break the social contract with society, don't expect it to be reinstated once you get caught.

Having said that, I'm not from the US of America, were we jail people for pot. I am from a 2nd world country, were we do not give prisons enough money to jail just anyone because they kicked a can in the wrong area of a town. If you end up in Jail here, you majorly fucked up somewhere.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Should we allow pharmaceutical companies to test out potentially dangerous drugs in prisons where the presence "informed consent" can be questionable, or do the benefits outweigh the risks to the prisoners? Should the prisoners even have a choice in the matter? What do you think o' rabid hordes of the Escapist?

Not with those terms.
They might be horrible people, done horrible acts or what not. But they are still human and they have their rights. If being a criminal removes your right for humanity why do we have criminal justice then? If you get caught, theres nothing you can do.

No these terms are horrible and with these no test should be run. They tried a system like this in Germany
once they were called "work camps".

Only if the person in prison has signed an contract that is legal and represents the good of all three parties. Should test like these allowed to be run.

Let's say someone get convicted for 2 years in prison for avoiding tax, he gets "will fully" fed drugs that destroys hes liver and kidneys, he dies. Justice served? Or are these test ran on specific criminals? Those who are there longer than 20 years? Has committed a murder, rape? Hey who don't we just set it so that only those who are most likely to be a burden to society again if and when they get out of prison or only to white/black/eastern/pink people? Talk about equal representation of human value.

And the background of people who are in prison is often questionable. There is lot of drug users who's body might be damaged by them, they might be using drugs in prison. They food quality might be inferior to people outside prison, they might be carrying some disease. If they have any condition like this, even a hidden one that no one is aware of, since medical records of people who sit in jail can be questioned because of their background, it will render the test results useless.

I will say no to this.
- No one should be forced to anything regardless of their situation.
-- They might be horrible people* (*By our standards) but they still have human rights.
--- Who gets to decided who gets to run test in what prison? Government? Well if this information get leaked we got something worse in our hands than some paper that has been leaked in to wikileaks regarding of French agriculture ministers visit to discuss differences between regulations.

 

[Eumersian]

No. They shouldn't be forced against their will to do things like that.

I used to think that you could do anything to a prisoner that you wanted, because they forfeited their rights when they chose to break the law. But I have changed.

Something like drug trials can be life-threatening. Things like forced labor and whatnot are probably not inherently life-threatening as far as I can tell. But the reason that Pfizer and such do drug trials is because they have no idea what they hell the drugs will do. They think they do, but aren't 100% sure. A person has to be willing to risk their life for science.

 

[Jiefu]

No, they shouldn't be forced to take part in clinical trials - especially considering that most clinical trials have to be done on people with the disorder in question. Prisoners are still human beings, and have the right to determine what is being put into their bodies. They're not animals or cell cultures, they're people.

 

[Gigano]

No, criminals retain human worth, and even if they didn't there are limits to both what powers a government should be able to wield, and how far it should lower itself.

They could certainly be offered to participate willingly though, with due payment.

 

[erto101]

Human Rights Abuse. All i want to add

Edit: That idea kinda remind of the nazi's experiments... at least in spirit

 

[Quiet Stranger]

Yes of course, although don't we already do it on animals? Now that I think of it, we should test them on the mentally insane, and I mean the REALLY insane! you know, the people with foam coming out of their mouths and who just want to kill, kill, KILL! People like that Cassidy fellow from Spider Man

 

[General Vagueness]

I'd say yes as long as they consent and fit what the test is for, and if you're still worried you can limit it to people who are there for non-violent crimes.

 

[monkey_man]

Yes. but only if their crimes were so severy they are sentanced for live x 2, or killed over 10 other humans/was involved in the deaths of 10 humans.
"good news everyone!"

 

[MasterChief892039]

If they consent, if there is constant medical treatment available to them, and if they are paid for the work, then yes.

It would also probably be a good idea to have some sort of regulation check ups on the operation to make sure the company isn't taking advantage of the prisoner's compromised and less-than-powerful position as an inmate. I'd imagine it would be fairly easy to bully a caged man into "consenting" to whatever you want.

 

[Tenky]

Wow... not only about half the people in prison were sent there by a jury with prejudices and have their life taken away from them... they should be labrats too? How about orphans too? they're not loved anyways!

Sickening....