Poll: Should prison inmates be used in pharmaceutical trials?

[Criquefreak]

Consent is certainly a necessary step, though sometimes prisoners are in there due in part to undiagnosed but still serious mental illness, which would have a negative impact on the testing process.

 

[alik44]

if your senteced to life or death and i mean the total life no poral nothin straight life. uu might as well not like they doin anyhting

 

[Grospoliner]

The option should be made available to them, but they should not be forced to participate.

They should however be made to labor to improve our society. Conceivably, they could be made to operate factory machinery in a building adjacent to the prison or used to perform roadside work while under guard.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Seriously? We have animals for that, they don't put lives on danger and it would go against several human rights. Its sick, wrong and inhuman.

 

[Jekken6]

If the inmate is willing, then go for it. If not, then, no.

 

[Jark212]

I'd be on board if it was volunteer only, because prisoners or not, their still protect by the US Constitution (Or by other laws in other Nations)...

 

[dalek sec]

Yes, take all those upstanding citizens with many life sentences and use them for every questionable unethical thing imaginable, they had their shot at being human, now they can be lab rats.

This, just put those savage gang bangers and the like to work as lab rats, atleast they'll finally do something worthy with their lives for once. I say go for it, if it helps some kid or elderly person than I say it was worth it in the end.

 

[HotPocket]

Seems to be a simple enough question. Should prison inmates be used in pharmaceutical trials? 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?

I think they should, tests should also be done when testing has already started on other animals and is deemed as safe as possible for humans. It should not be mandatory but would carry with it either extra benefits in prison (more free time) or a reduced sentence (I suppose it would depend upon the crime).

 

[Conza]

Voluntarily, yes. But those people are sentenced to serve time (rehabilitation does not work in prisons, lets me honest here), not be used for scientific experiments as a form of punishment.

 

[Small Waves]

That's a stupid and terrible idea, both ethically and legally. Adverse effects to medications can go from nausea and vomiting to life-threatening side effects that could potentially lead to horrible, painful deaths. To support such a barbaric thing is just as dehumanizing and morally ass-backwards as the crimes that are punishable by life sentence or death.

 

[Sejs Cube]

Only if they give consent and receive appropriate compensation and oversight for their participation.

Prison or not, they're still people.

 

[B33J33]

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*

In my opinion this goes against all ethics, nobody should ever lose the right over their (quality of) life. If somebody does something wrong they deserve to be punished - this does not mean their lives are worth less or can be treated as a lab-rat.

 

[Tharwen]

Only if they've agreed to it. I imagine if it was non-consentual, the companies might get a little more... experimental with their products. Also, doing bad things to people's bodies without their consent is generally not a good thing to do.

 

[Teh Roflchoppa]

Yes. The ones who are serving life especially, not because i hate them personally, but we pay taxes so they live, ones that are not serving life, have consent. And prison doesn't scare enough people these days anyways...

 

[Roxas1359]

That's just it, though: the whole point of prison is that they've lot all their rights because they (allegedly) committed a major crime.

Criminals do not lose ALL their rights; they still have their basic human rights. They lose their legal rights (like voting, for example). So forcibly putting them into medical experiments is terrbly wrong. However, if it were voluntary I'd say go for it. It would speed up the testing process.

I agree with what Goat says. A prisoner is still entitled to some rights, I say some because it may vary from country to country, but in the United States there are still standards and ethics. That said if they volunteer that that could be okay as long as they are given informed consent before the experiment, or afterwords so to make sure that the code of ethics were followed.

 

[Dags90]

That's a stupid and terrible idea, both ethically and legally. Adverse effects to medications can go from nausea and vomiting to life-threatening side effects that could potentially lead to horrible, painful deaths. To support such a barbaric thing is just as dehumanizing and morally ass-backwards as the crimes that are punishable by life sentence or death.

It's also impractical. In the U.S. at least, many inmates do not meet the health standards required for pharmaceutical trials. There's also the fact that most inmates are temporary and some drug trials last quite some time.

Drug use, HIV, hepatitis and numerous other conditions are rampant in U.S. prisons.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Not if the informed consent is questionable.

Or if it is non-consentual (see what I did there? )

OT: Only if it is completely voluntary. The moment it becomes less than that it needs to be stopped (the same applies for non-prisoners being test subjects, there has to be complete understanding and consent).

EDIT:

-snip-

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to tell me why there is no option for 'with informed consent'.