Ethics: Use of prisoners as medical research subjects

[Lagmonster]

Do you think it would be acceptable to change the penal system so that convicted (and medically eligible) criminals could be forced to participate in non-invasive medical research (mainly product testing) as an alternative to or part of their sentence?


Would it be acceptable if they were guaranteed that the prisoners were guaranteed the same safety that volunteers are normally given, and treated as well as a volunteer would be in the same situation?


Now stretch it a bit; would it be acceptable in a state which assigns the death penalty, and under a guideline of reasonable care and responsibility on behalf of the state, to force particularly awful convicts to surrender non-critical organs or limbs to provide organic materials or tissue, possibly shortening their lives or rendering them handicapped (ie., removing a convicted pedophile's arms or legs, eyes, blood donations, or a single lung or kidney), or otherwise forced to participate as living subjects for surgical experimentation, as an alternative to a death sentence AND by the consent of the prisoner?

[Solauren]

I think it's ethical if it's voluntary. (And if that's the case, make in invasive too)

[Surlethe]

Do you think it would be acceptable to change the penal system so that convicted (and medically eligible) criminals could be forced to participate in non-invasive medical research (mainly product testing) as an alternative to or part of their sentence?

Offhand, I can't think of a reason not to; criminals give up rights when they commit crimes, and, since research tends to better humanity, there's no reason they can't be forced to do this, if they can be forced to do penal labor.

Would it be acceptable if they were guaranteed that the prisoners were guaranteed the same safety that volunteers are normally given, and treated as well as a volunteer would be in the same situation?

See above, and yes.

Now stretch it a bit; would it be acceptable in a state which assigns the death penalty, and under a guideline of reasonable care and responsibility on behalf of the state, to force particularly awful convicts to surrender non-critical organs or limbs to provide organic materials or tissue, possibly shortening their lives or rendering them handicapped (ie., removing a convicted pedophile's arms or legs, eyes, blood donations, or a single lung or kidney), or otherwise forced to participate as living subjects for surgical experimentation, as an alternative to a death sentence AND by the consent of the prisoner?

Again, I don't see why not; it's the prisoner's choice: die, or give up limbs. And if they die, the state should be able to use the limbs anyway, so either way, it's a win-win situation.

The one thing to make sure of before taking permanent measures is that the prisoner is actually guilty of the crime; it wouldn't look good if he were innocent, and got his eye removed and left leg chopped off.

[1123581321]

Removing body parts from convicts IMHO would fall under the cruel and unusual provision of the Constitution. As would forcing them to participate in any involuntary medical tests.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Just to clarify, are you asking if the law should be made based on legal provisions, or hypothetically based on ethical ones?

[Anguirus]

I know that you've set it up so that the prisoners consent to it, but this seems like it could be badly abused. Our penal system is not exactly squeaky-clean, and so the precedent of medical experimentation and amputation on prisoners makes me think that some could be coerced into it by unscrupulous guards.

Maybe I'm paranoid. It sounds like a good idea *in theory*, but it makes me uneasy.

[Lagmonster]

Just to clarify, are you asking if the law should be made based on legal provisions, or hypothetically based on ethical ones?

Ethical; At some point, I was actually wondering whether someone would attempt to argue that conducting medical research constituted cruel and unusual punishment. I suppose it would help to know someone who's volunteered for product or procedural testing.

For example, imagine you do a serious crime, and you have diabetes. The state, as part of your sentence, forces you to be a test subject for an approved-for-testing-on-humans procedure/product that might cure diabetes (side effects unknown).

[wolveraptor]

So would these procedures only be performed upon consenting criminals who were being punished with execution or life? Or might those who commit less heinous crimes also be treated thusly?

[Lagmonster]

So would these procedures only be performed upon consenting criminals who were being punished with execution or life? Or might those who commit less heinous crimes also be treated thusly?

I'm offering you more than one option, varying from non-consentual non-invasive product testing and experimentation to concenting (or not, you choose) invasive research or even forced organ and blood donation.

Remember that in order to experiment on humans, a product or procedure has to be thoroughly and rigorously tested and approved. Obviously, a researcher wouldn't be able to do whatever they wanted to a prisoner - they would be bound by the same rules for experimentation they are now. It would simply be that the prisoner has no say in the matter.

Then, I stretch it a bit to ask whether you should be able to force prisoners to donate blood, or even tissue or organs.

[Anguirus]

Prisoners should not be forced to donate anything or participate in any experiment. With the exception of execution, our system of punishments is designed to remove offenders from society while allowing for the possibility, however distant, of evidence surfacing showing that they are innocent. Screwing with someone biologically could lead to irrevocable change or injury. It absolutely should not be done to nonconsenting humans.

Could this lead to a situation in which more convictions are desired in order to obtain more experimental subjects or donors?

Besides which, it's not even a great idea scientifically, since your population is thte prison population, not the country at large.

[wolveraptor]

What makes you think the prison demographic is different from the rest of the population biologically?

[Anguirus]

^ The race and gender balance is different, and violent offenders may be significantly more aggressive than the population at large. A lot would depend on the prison, I suppose, but that throws yet another monkey wrench in the works.

Using only individuals in an environment segregated from the population you're trying to study means you can't count on applying your results to that population...only the prison population. It's not relevant when it comes to donors, but it is for experimentation.

[SirNitram]

'Aggressive'? What the hell does that matter?

[Anguirus]

It's just a way in which the prison population is not typical. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but aggression is a partly physiological response.

[Darth Yoshi]

Death row inmates should be forced organ donors. Face it; they're going to die anyway, so you might as well save the body.

[ArmorPierce]

Agreed, but what he is suggesting is that they forcibly surrender their body parts such as their arms, legs, kidney.

[Lagmonster]

Bear in mind that medical research does not necessitate strapping someone to a table and slicing them open to dip their liver in a vat of chemicals.

An individual would have to be eligible for testing, and even in the case of forcing prisoners to give blood, they'd have to be tested as eligible for that too (and I'm willing to bet more people would okay forcing eligible prisoners to donate blood or plasma by the pint, given the demand and the relatively non-threatening nature of blood donation).

[SirNitram]

Has anyone in this thread talking about how it shouldn't happen been in a medical test? Where they give you a new type of pill, or a sugar pill? Or are they basing their opinions on mad scientist movies?

[CarsonPalmer]

It seems to me that only certain criminals should be involved with this. A petty pickpocket, for example, should not be forced to, where a habitual offender would.

[Plekhanov]

Medical trials aren't just done to see how effective new treatments are they are also done to see what potentially harmful side effects they have. As such by forcing prisoners to take part in trials you could be forcing them to irreparably damage their health, something that is rather difficult to justify ethically.

This course of action is also rather troubling as it views prisoners not as human beings temporarily deprived of their liberty but as a biological resource to be exploited for scientific & commercial gain that is not a step which I’d like to see society go down.

[General Zod]

Provided this were purely an option for the prisoner to take to get a reduced sentence, and not mandatorily forced, I would have no problems with this. However for someone on Death Row, etc., I could see it as being a mandatory part of their punishment.

[Darth Wong]

Bear in mind that medical research does not necessitate strapping someone to a table and slicing them open to dip their liver in a vat of chemicals.

How disappointing. You just live to dash dreams, don't you?

[Surlethe]

It seems to me that only certain criminals should be involved with this. A petty pickpocket, for example, should not be forced to, where a habitual offender would.

This is easily remedied by applying a continuum of experimentation: a petty pickpocket may be mandatorily assigned to participate in a flu vaccine test, whereas a serial rapist-killer might be forced to donate his stomach, two legs, an arm, an eye, and bone marrow.

[Noble Ire]

It seems to me that only certain criminals should be involved with this. A petty pickpocket, for example, should not be forced to, where a habitual offender would.

This is easily remedied by applying a continuum of experimentation: a petty pickpocket may be mandatorily assigned to participate in a flu vaccine test, whereas a serial rapist-killer might be forced to donate his stomach, two legs, an arm, an eye, and bone marrow.

I don't think lesser criminals should be involved in such a punishment system. They are often criminals of circumstance, and have at least some chance of reform, and exposing them to potentially deadly or extremely harmful drugs, no matter how low the risk is, is unacceptable to me. However, more serious offenders might be more viable contenders for such procedures, and death row inmates should have their bodies forfeited to medical or scientific research upon execution. However, the idea of maiming living prisoners by removing their body parts strikes me as "cruel and unusual", even for those accused of a capital offense (since the possibility of legal or government intervention exists up until their death, in case new evidence comes to light.)

[Anguirus]

Death row inmates should be forced organ donors. Face it; they're going to die anyway, so you might as well save the body.

Now this I understand, assuming the execution itself doesn't damage organs.

Of course, that's only if the death penalty remains in place, which I hope will not remain the case.

Has anyone in this thread talking about how it shouldn't happen been in a medical test? Where they give you a new type of pill, or a sugar pill? Or are they basing their opinions on mad scientist movies?

I have not. What I know about medical tests comes from Psychology class and what my dad's biotech company is doing.

I am not familiar with "mad scientist movies" in general, though I doubt they can be much more horrific than German and Japanese medical tests on unwilling subjects during World War II.

"A new type of pill" could easily be dangerous. THAT'S WHY THEY TEST THEM. Forcing someone to risk their own health crosses my threshold of "cruel and unusual punishment."

No reputable scientist will agree that testing should be done on unwilling humans. There isn't a serious shortage of volunteers for medical tests in this country anyway, so the only reason you'd need or want prisoners is because they would be easier to coerce or force into more dangerous experiments.