Poll: Should prison inmates be used in pharmaceutical trials?

[Rasputin1]

I think they should, but only on inmates that are convincted of murder, rape, or any other crime equal to those, and also only if it's been proven without doubt the person commited such crimes. I.E a confession or such. As far as I'm concerned, people who have done such things have given up the right to govern their own lives.

Of course though, I don't think that it would actually work. Unless you had a confession from the person that they had actually commited it, there's not many whys to be 100% sure, which is what would be needed if such a thing was implemented.

So while I think they should, I don't think it would work.

*prepares for hate*

 

[springheeljack]

No...shit no, prisoners are human beings
well i hope the 40% that voted yes are never given any positions of power..ever

 

[tthor]

if the inmates are well informed of the risks and choose to, then why not. though this would probably require careful government oversight to make sure that the prisoners are not deceived, threatened or forced into doing drug trials, that they are made well aware beforehand what the risks are, and that the drug company doesn't overstep it's bounds, such as knowingly testing overly dangerous, cruel, or completely untested drugs (drugs trials still requires an extensive amount of testing before it should be deemed safe enough for human trials).

If they were forcing inmates to do drug trials, that would be very wrong. Monstrous, even. The only way a person could ever be able to justify letting that happen would be if they believed prison inmates to be complete monsters, beneath human, and that they deserve whatever horrible torture they receive. But there is almost no such thing as an 'evil' person, all humans are compelled to do the things they do based on their environment and their biology. If a person's environment led him to kill, is that really enough to warrant a lifetime of torture by drugs? He is merely acting in the way the world has led him to act. If a person's biology led him to kill, is that really enough to warrant a lifetime of torture by drugs? He is merely following what his body is genetically programmed to do, whether he himself likes it or not. These things may warrant execution, but they do not warrant a lifetime of torture through dangerous drug trials.

 

[BioHazardMan]

I think so, the dangerous ones should be given by the consent of death row inmates, instead of execution.

 

[Leg End]

didnt the nazis do this sort of thing?

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Glenn Beck might hear you...

OT- If they are willing to? Yes.
Signed verification.

They are humans.
They have rights.
They are still people.

My Soviet Comrade basically sums up my opinion.

Like anyone else that would go through these trials, informed consent. Anything else and you are far worse than whatever they possibly did.

Not if the informed consent is questionable.

Basically, this.

Sure yeah, sink below the level of even some of the worst criminals by pulling dehumanising shit like that.

Now actual informed consent, ok sure.

Also this.

Absolutely not, what a sickening idea!

Anon sums it up nicely.

Yeah, I too think that the lack of concentration camps these days is rather saddening.
I mean, why stop at criminals?
There's plenty of other nutcases and extremists, with this amazing concept you can both silence them and make a benefit!

Seriously, the fact that over 50% voted "Yes" is very disturbing.

This just made me choke on my drink in laughter. XD

Except for the last part, that made me lose faith in humanity a bit. (O_O)

What? No.

Wait. What? Absolutely not!

That you even posited the question about whether they should "even have a choice in the matter" appalls me. Prisons and the justice system itself are enough of an inherent problem in and of themselves without turning them into lab-rat factories as well. That's just disgusting.

Fuck pharmaceuticals anyway. A terrible multi-billion dollar business comprised solely of convincing us we have a problem, and marketing hope in a bottle to cure our newly imagined afflictions.

Basically what I was going to say, except with less burning hatred.

Can we just make this clear? Prison is the punishment. Anything on top of that is you fucking with people when you shouldn't be.

Agreed to the fullest extent.


Holy Hell, almost everyone stated everything I was going to say!

I am... proud of all of you. ;~;

*HUGS while breaking down crying*

EDIT: That 30-45% approval is really disturbing. Seriously guys.

I'm going to go...

Hide in the basement...

[sub]The Escapist Behemoth could use some company...[/sub]

 

[FalloutJack]

Only the drug-dealers.

 

[s0p0g]

of course, but under the same premises as they test new drugs on non-prisoners: willing, informed, consented. everything else is a no-go. after all, they are (called) prisoners, not slaves or lab-rats. they (temporarily) lost some civil rights, but not their human rights - at least in good ol' europe; i am to understand that some/many(?) u.s. americans see that differently.

 

[Mesca]

I see no reason why not. As long as the experiment is approved and follows all medical guidelines, I see nothing wrong with it. We've been fairly stringent about human testing since the old days of Tuskegee Syphilis and what not.

Unapproved experimentation is a straight up atrocity though. Prisoner experimentation should follow the same guidelines as it would for civilians. We have very specific, very closely monitored guidelines for regular people, prisoners should be no different. It should be made clear exactly what will be done, how, when, to what extent, and that they would be able to stop at any time with no repercussions.

 

[2xDouble]

Should they be used? Certainly. There's no reason not to let them participate in drug trials, especially if they happen to have unique conditions.

Should they be forced? Absolutely not. Forced "scientific" experimentation is clearly defined as illegal "Cruel and Unusual punishment" under US law. (...not to mention morally reprehensible.)

 

[Nurb]

I think they already do something like that, with their consent of course. I forget if it was drugs exactly, but I do remember hearing inmates volunteering to test something.

 

[oppp7]

Considering the amount of people that get falsely accused: FUCK NO.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

If they consent to it, by all means. I think there should be more constructive things going on in prisons.

 

[6037084]

against the prisoners on will no, but in exchange for shorter jail time or something along those lines maybe, as long as they're testing potentially life saving drugs not make up.

 

[Danish rage]

I think they should, but only on inmates that are convincted of murder, rape, or any other crime equal to those, and also only if it's been proven without doubt the person commited such crimes. I.E a confession or such. As far as I'm concerned, people who have done such things have given up the right to govern their own lives.

Of course though, I don't think that it would actually work. Unless you had a confession from the person that they had actually commited it, there's not many whys to be 100% sure, which is what would be needed if such a thing was implemented.

So while I think they should, I don't think it would work.

*prepares for hate*

I see where you going with this...but try and sit back and think about it a bit more. Please.

Im fairly sure if you give it some thought you will see the errors in this approach. You simply can´t do that to people, it would be a crime against humanity. It´s more or less this idea you describe that are the reasons for the Nurnberg trials after WW2.

Don´t even get me started on death penalty.

 

[Choppaduel]

not against their will they shouldn't

 

[SCAFC Chimp]

Yes. Much rather a rapist or serial killer do it if the effects are potentially dangerous.

 

[standokan]

Go ahead, I mean, what could happen, it´s not like it´s morally wrong or anything.

 

[PissOffRoth]

didnt the nazis do this sort of thing?

Not with medicine, but there was one nutter who's name I can't remember that would torture twins to see if the other could feel it or remove a limb from one person and attach it to another to see if it could be used. Nasty stuff, but it wasn't with domestic criminals. More like POWs and civilians of invaded countries.

I take your point though. WTF at the thought of even trying this. Besides, you think there are so few people in the world that everyone would notice if a couple got swooped up by a huge corporation to be experimented on? How many people go missing in dangerous or war-ridden countries and just get marked off as MIA?

Paranoia, maybe. But it's possible.

 

[Rasputin1]

I think they should, but only on inmates that are convincted of murder, rape, or any other crime equal to those, and also only if it's been proven without doubt the person commited such crimes. I.E a confession or such. As far as I'm concerned, people who have done such things have given up the right to govern their own lives.

Of course though, I don't think that it would actually work. Unless you had a confession from the person that they had actually commited it, there's not many whys to be 100% sure, which is what would be needed if such a thing was implemented.

So while I think they should, I don't think it would work.

*prepares for hate*

I see where you going with this...but try and sit back and think about it a bit more. Please.

Im fairly sure if you give it some thought you will see the errors in this approach. You simply can´t do that to people, it would be a crime against humanity. It´s more or less this idea you describe that are the reasons for the Nurnberg trials after WW2.

Don´t even get me started on death penalty.

I do realize there are alot of errors with that approach, that's why I think it wouldnt work. But as you may have guessed, I have little to no sympathy for those sort of people.