It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Challenge Match. Kenshiro2012 vs Memoryshock: Lab Rat Nation

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
The topic for this debate is "It is, in the name of science, O.K. to experiment on American citizens without their knowledge".

Kenshiro2012 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Memoryshock will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 48 hours. The debate officially begins on Friday, 1/25.

This is a challenge match. The winner will recieve 2 ranking points, the loser will lose 2 ranking points. This debate will be judged by a secret pannel.




posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
First let me thank The Vagabond for allowing me to once again participate in the Debate forum. I would also like to thank MemoryShock for the invite. May the best one win.

Now, On to this wonderful topic, “Is it ok to experiment on American citizens without their knowledge? I will open with one of my favorite movie quotes, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” From the Star trek movie the wrath of Khan. This single quote aptly identifies my stance on this subject.
In order for the greater good, some will suffer. Which is better? That a few people suffer so that the rest of society can enjoy a better life? I for one will say yes. As to the question of whether or not they know about the experimentation is kind of a mute point. Most of our society do not have enough of an education to understand all of the ramifications of what they agree to even if they were told. Look at how many people out there willing participate in “studies” The signs to induce people to join line our highways offering a quick way to get cash. Even, if they were told of every possible side effect, yes even death there are many who will ignore for the immediate award of the cash.
The only time that the ones who volunteer for experimentation complain is if they (or more likely the lawyers) is if they believe that they can get even more money.
Sometimes, not very often, the risks when presented upfront to the subjects, seem to be too extreme and thus there are no volunteers. Where would we be today if that were to be the case every time? How will the drug companies get the next AIDs medication out to the public without human volunteers? How about a cure for cancer, or just like in the movies that have been out the last few years like “I am Legend” , “Resident Evil”, not perform sufficient testing, do you want the researchers to put out the “cure” too early, not knowing all the possible results, kill, harm, or maim all people and not just a few test subjects.
As history has shown us time and time again, If the results of the testing has a positive outcome for everyone else, yes our bleeding heart liberals will hoot and holler. The rest of society will complain, poo poo the issue. Say that they are outrage but in the end. It is not them so…. So what is the difference? Pay out monies and tell people up front even though you know that they do not understand (and in most cases, the testers themselves don’t understand). Or just take the initiative perform the tests without informing the participants. Take the credit for the success, or pay the fees and fines for the failures.

It is necessary in today’s civilization to be pragmatic. There are way too many critical issues facing not only the US but the entire world. Global warming, war, food shortages, Bird Flu, energy shortages, over population, ad nauseum. Our government and our scientists need to start to take drastic steps now, or soon our world, our way of life will be like something out of H.P. Lovecraft’s worst nightmare. If it takes performing experimentation on a few people as needed, to find solutions to our present and future needs this world will end in only a few short years.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
First let me thank The Vagabond for allowing me to once again participate in the Debate forum. I would also like to thank MemoryShock for the invite. May the best one win.

Now, On to this wonderful topic, “Is it ok to experiment on American citizens without their knowledge? I will open with one of my favorite movie quotes, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” From the Star trek movie the wrath of Khan. This single quote aptly identifies my stance on this subject.
In order for the greater good, some will suffer. Which is better? That a few people suffer so that the rest of society can enjoy a better life? I for one will say yes. As to the question of whether or not they know about the experimentation is kind of a mute point. Most of our society do not have enough of an education to understand all of the ramifications of what they agree to even if they were told. Look at how many people out there willing participate in “studies” The signs to induce people to join line our highways offering a quick way to get cash. Even, if they were told of every possible side effect, yes even death there are many who will ignore for the immediate award of the cash.
The only time that the ones who volunteer for experimentation complain is if they (or more likely the lawyers) is if they believe that they can get even more money.
Sometimes, not very often, the risks when presented upfront to the subjects, seem to be too extreme and thus there are no volunteers. Where would we be today if that were to be the case every time? How will the drug companies get the next AIDs medication out to the public without human volunteers? How about a cure for cancer, or just like in the movies that have been out the last few years like “I am Legend” , “Resident Evil”, not perform sufficient testing, do you want the researchers to put out the “cure” too early, not knowing all the possible results, kill, harm, or maim all people and not just a few test subjects.
As history has shown us time and time again, If the results of the testing has a positive outcome for everyone else, yes our bleeding heart liberals will hoot and holler. The rest of society will complain, poo poo the issue. Say that they are outrage but in the end. It is not them so…. So what is the difference? Pay out monies and tell people up front even though you know that they do not understand (and in most cases, the testers themselves don’t understand). Or just take the initiative perform the tests without informing the participants. Take the credit for the success, or pay the fees and fines for the failures.

It is necessary in today’s civilization to be pragmatic. There are way too many critical issues facing not only the US but the entire world. Global warming, war, food shortages, Bird Flu, energy shortages, over population, ad nauseum. Our government and our scientists need to start to take drastic steps now, or soon our world, our way of life will be like something out of H.P. Lovecraft’s worst nightmare. If it takes performing experimentation on a few people as needed, to find solutions to our present and future needs this world will end in only a few short years.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I would like to thank my esteemed opponent kenshiro2012 for accepting this challenge and The Vagabond for his assistance in setting up the battlefield.

I will open with a variation of a quote from one of my favorite movies, V for Vendetta



A malpracticed messenger of shady meditations makes a moral misjudgment to the malady of the menial man. Might a marvelous mustering of momentum be made in the matter of mental shrewdness for mankind… MAYNOT we men upon this sphere mistake the majesty of each (un)shadowed mate. When misleading messages from the metaphorically masked mass of medicine and military shirk maxims of our reality we should show our malice to the machinations of these mercenaries….

More ministrations of this materialization of words might make this memorandum as moot…

Shudder such a musing….Mark me as MemoryShock.


If we don’t fight for our own rights, we will have them trampled on. As below…my emphasis:



Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]


An American citizen has rights. In a society that has increasingly been subject to commercial and scientific progress, these rights have come upon a grey area, where persons can be taken advantage of without ever knowing why. As my opponent has stated, the discrepancy between the education of our science/business professionals and our blue collar working society is HUGE. A good example of this would be our advertising industry, where commercials and printed ads not only compel an individual to participate in activities that do not encourage intellectual growth (sitcoms) but are themselves an indication of the level of forethought and organization that is undertaken by those with a mind towards the latest in psychological study. The people who are making the ads are more concerned with the effect they will have on the consumers behaviour than they are about the consumers benefit. The consumer, not having the luxury of attenuation afforded by the advertiser is usually none the wiser.

Likewise with the situation between the medical practitioner and patient. The doctor has access to a much broader base of information than does the layman. Does this communicate an implicit right to some of our professionals that they may take it upon themselves to negotiate the factors in the well being of, say, a Wal-Mart employee without unrestricted communication between the two? There is nothing in the literature of our national legislation that bestows this responsibility upon one over another.

But it has happened and will undoubtedly happen again. Not only do I intend to show the negative impact of past experiments upon the individuals who were oblivious to the experiment but as well I will question profusely whether or not the data gathered from relatively isolated numbers of unawares guinea pigs has a relevant influence upon the progression of our scientific comprehension.

Consider for a second the impact upon an injured and unconscious individual who was just subjected to the experimentation of the relevancy of using all resuscitation techniques in the emergency room and contrast it with the impact upon further scientific knowledge? Using all the aspects of emergency resuscitation has a greater chance of helping the patient as it is…one would naturally think….so why risk the life of an individual for a footnote to an accepted procedure?[2] Indeed the previous link is a study/survey researching the attitudes and awareness of “Emergency Exception from Informed Consent in Resuscitation Research, Community Consultation, and Public Notification.” If you’ll examine the last line of the same link, you’ll note the following quote…



These differences may guide institutional review boards and investigators in community-consultation strategies for future waiver of or exception from informed consent studies.


We are not looking simply at examples of the Tuskagee Experiment or MK-ULTRA where experimentation upon humans without their knowledge have occurred…which makes them by no means any less atrocious, but human experimentation without consent is currently being undertaken to such an extent that we have a study regarding the publics knowledge and awareness and how best to strategize in their regard….

That is not acceptable.

There is not a single one of us on this planet whom asked to be born into our respective lives. Not a single one. Yet we all have primarily the same drives, that being basic human necessities of hunger, thirst, social desire, etc…As such, I do not hold that someone who was born with different opportunities and resources has any right to claim the amount of space and matter that my physicality claims in this universe…even if they rationalize to the extent that, “It’s for the greater good,” or, “Many others will benefit…”

I want the opportunity to live and experience this world, as does everybody else.
Who would dare take that from me, much less tell me that they are in the right.

Would the potential for scientific progress offset the individual pain and suffering? Would the unattained dreams and goals be justified by ‘a better tomorrow’, in a world where commercial enterprise viciously seeks to demand the attention for various products that encourage debauchery on a scale that renders the general population unhealthy and uninformed anyway?

What good is the penultimate diet drug if Mcdonalds continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising alone?

The potential for negative impact to the physical, social, and mental health of an individual does not justify the intrusion of another individual for empirical data that has a great likelihood of not providing a sufficient amount of certainty in the correlative study.

How many scientists consider all of the factors involved in the day to day life of an individual, especially when the scientist in question has rationalized that the very person who can supply such information ‘need not be consulted’? What about pre-existing factors that were incurred in the normal living of the impacted individual that is not readily available to the surreptitious experimenter?

There are many different physiological types, and it follows that there are many different personality types as well. Are all of these factors being considered; even being attempted to being considered? It is irresponsible to not be as thorough as possible….the very reality of science necessitates a thorough investigation of the situation at hand, whether it be static physical properties of a door knob or the complex cellular relationships within a human body, yet there may be many issues of relevance being omitted by the experimenter because of the failure to communicate.

A rebuttal:

My opponent states the following…



Or just take the initiative perform the tests without informing the participants. Take the credit for the success, or pay the fees and fines for the failures.


…which I find incredible. Would anyone here be satisfied with a friend taking/using whatever they desired of your possession, without prior regard, but merely a nonchalant decision to ‘deal with the consequences as they arrive? The inconvenience to you could very well have made all the difference, but that wasn’t considered before hand…the only consideration being, ‘how to keep you from squawking too much.’ Is that even a friend worth having?



In the words of Hans Jonas, failure to safeguard human rights may lead to "the erosion of those moral values whose loss, possibly caused by too ruthless a pursuit of scientific progress, would make its most dazzling triumphs not worth having."[3]


What good is scientific progress if we don’t respect each other in the end? What good is the greatest scientific achievement if we end up looking at each other with a hint of suspicion, a dash of disdain, and a fundamental inclination to be pessimistic towards one another?

Not good enough, when the same progress could be had without the sleight of hand or lies.

All men are created equal.

Is this just lip service?

No…we are created equal in that we are allowed autonomy over our own bodies relative to the circumstances and opportunities afforded us.

No one gets two bodies.

It’s not OK, not even a little, for people to experiment on other people without their knowledge.


[1] www.archives.gov...
[2]www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3]www.essayempire.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Nice opening there MemoryShock.
Now for the rebuttal of which I have many. Let us first take a look a quote that you used.



quote/ MAYNOT we men upon this sphere mistake the majesty of each (un)shadowed mate. When misleading messages from the metaphorically masked mass of medicine and military shirk maxims of our reality we should show our malice to the machinations of these mercenaries….


The very wording of this identifies that it is from a learned person. A person who has a very large vocabulary, but yet…, proves themselves to be well outside the norm. Yet, even the IQ of V does not equate that he has enough of an understanding of all scientific or medical lore. Yes, granted, V is a zealot for the individual rights of men, he is well versed in literature and history does not mean that he is as equally versed in all other aspects. If he were then he would be a god.
If, he would have been told that there was an experimental drug that could extend his life, for example, all of his vast knowledge of literature would not imbue him with the expertise to ask the right questions nor completely understand all of the ramifications of the side effects of the drug.
Let me give you an age old problem. You rub a oil lamp and out pops a genie who then grants you three wishes. For your first wish, you ask for the riches of the world. The second, a long life, and the third, you wish to be the healthiest man in the world. Easy and simple wishes, on the surface. Only when the genie grants you your wish…… you find several tons of gold, platinum etc, now crowding your little room. It is crushing the life out of you. You start to scream for help…. Only there are no longer any other people, thus, in your pain and agony, of which you cannot stop and do not die from, you have been granted your wishes. You have all of the riches in the world. You are the healthiest person in the world and you are living a very long life.
We do not have the entire knowledge nor wisdom to identify all possible outcomes of all of our decisions. We need to rely on others who we consider to be “experts” whether it be a doctor, a scientist, or our government. Unfortunately, even they are not fully aware of all possible outcomes of all of their decisions.


quote/ Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

It is very interesting that you point this amendment out. This quote, has been misused on this topic by many people. I fully support this amendment unfortunately, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Notice, that it only mentions, searches of their persons, homes etc. there is no mention that anyone anywhere is required to tell a subject that they are going to be experimented on.
You would have done much, much better if you had rather cited
Code of Federal Regulations
TITLE 45
PUBLIC WELFARE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
PART 46
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
This can be found at
www.hhs.gov...
This was first introduced in 1979 and was last updated in September 2005.
This regulation dictates that that both scientific and medical researchers are ethically required to get “informed consent” from their test subjects. Notice that I have quotations around the informed consent, we will get back to that in a moment.
If you take a careful reading of this document, there are many exceptions to this regulation.

(b) Unless otherwise required by department or agency heads, research activities in which the only involvement of human subjects will be in one or more of the following categories are exempt from this policy: (1) Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.
(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless:
(i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.
(3) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior that is not exempt under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if:
(i) the human subjects are elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office; or (ii) federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information will be maintained throughout the research and thereafter.
(4) Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.
(5) Research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of department or agency heads, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine:
(i) Public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii) possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs.
(6) Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies, (i) if wholesome foods without additives are consumed or (ii) if a food is consumed that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use found to be safe, or agricultural chemical or environmental contaminant at or below the level found to be safe, by the Food and Drug Administration or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Can you see the gapping loopholes in this law? Let just take the last one since a recent FDA decision that has been in the news plays a big part. In the 6th exception, notice that a researcher does not have to inform the subject if the test is to determine the taste, or quality of food. Well, guess what, we are now going to start to see cloned foods being introduced into our food supply. Do you think that any of the “taste testers” knew that they were consuming a cloned cow for example? No, of course not. The use of cloned food sources will present a boon to the people of the world providing substance to many who are starving today.
Let’s continue looking at this exception, notice the last line of the exception, the one that goes “found to be safe by the Food and Drug administration. As recent news has shown, they cannot even keep up with the jobs that we assumed they had been or else we would not have had so many food scares like we have been having the last few years such as the e-coli contamination that has made it to our plates the last few years killing and sickening many people. Do you trust this branch federal government to actually be able to make the correct decisions in determining what is safe or not. Not I!

Now remember I said we would come back to the “informed consent” and now I will address this.
The term informed consent is just meaningless words. Informed by who’s standards? The regulatory board who writes down what the minimum information that is to be given? Most of the time, the members of these boards are no longer the active doctors and scientists. The instead are the paper pushers and administrators. They do not have the most up to date information. They instead only require that a subject be given the minimum information. An example I can give for this would be the would be in 2001 Maryland high court ruled that researchers at Johns Hopkins could be sued for exposing children to high levels of lead. The topic of the research was to determine the effectiveness of various ways to lower lead toxicity. The amounts of lead was just under the high mark set by the government. Unfortunately, that level of lead was later to be determined to be too high. Thus created the basis of the lawsuit.
The problem of informed consent is that not only the researchers need to be able to determine all of the possible effects, both positive and negative not only in the present but also in the future.
Then you throw in the big monkey wrench into the mix. How does the researcher determine that the subject truly understands what the possible effects of the test. Remember, in most cases, not even the researchers know this.
I will present another scenario for you, back in the 1970’s loggers would coat logs with a type of sealant. This sealant had been used for decades. The researchers when they did their studies were only looking to ensure that the logs did not become waterlogged during the trip down the river and that it did not harm the wood. What they did not consider was that one of the main ingredients in the coating was Mercury and that while the logs were floating down stream, small amounts of mercury was exceeded into the



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
[snip]would not imbue him with the expertise to ask the right questions nor completely understand all of the ramifications of the side effects of the drug.


Nor would it necessarily impede his capacity to ask the right questions. The right questions are actually kind of basic….

1. Is this going to kill me?
2. Are there any noted potential side effects(that would alter greatly my daily schedule) that have been observed in animals?
3. What do you hope to accomplish?
4. Are you being honest?

And this is an example(kenshiro’s) where the hypothetical guinea pig was informed. Yes, to an extent we must rely on those who have specialized experience in certain industries, medicine being one of them….but that does not translate into blind acceptance. Nor should it. We have many examples where the assumed authority acted in such a fashion that unnecessary death resulted from the imposition of medical experiments upon otherwise healthy humans…

But what if the ‘experts’ don’t have a particular interest in the subjects’ well being? The Tuskagee Experiment illustrates this point well. It began in 1932 and didn’t end until 1972….and only then because of bad press (the story was printed in the Washington Star). Penicillin was available for a shocking 20 years and no effort was made to cure them…indeed, physicians were informed specifically to not administer the drug. Further, the subjects were not told about the infection and as a result, neither were any of their families.



But, by not treating the men in the study and by not informing the men of the nature of the disease, the PHS permitted many women to become infected with syphilis and many infants to acquire congenital syphilis. (pp. 104, 165, 215)[1]


Oh what a web we weave when at first we practice to deceive….

The experiment in this case not only ruined the lives of the subject pool, but also infected many other people who were not involved in the initial process. Remember when I asked above if all aspects of the scenario were taken into consideration? Applied to this case we can answer one of two ways:

1. Yes. Many if not all factors were considered. In which case, we can state that the physicians in question willfully introduced a biological pathogen into a small population and did nothing to rectify the situation. Where are the professional ethics there? Is it OK to allow innocent people to get in harms way just to study the reactions of a relatively small amount people and apply it as a rule for a bigger population set?

2. No. In which case, we can say that through negligence, other people were allowed to suffer needlessly. A great reason why there should be ways to prevent this kind of abuse of power.

Either scenario is unacceptable. A long term study done at the expense of human lives, willfully, with innocent people made casualty.

My opponent also states that most people are not educated enough to know the difference anyway…


Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Most of our society do not have enough of an education to understand all of the ramifications of what they agree to even if they were told.


To which I see a different approach….if the subject does not have the capacity to comprehend what is being done to him or her, then don’t experiment on them. Someone who lacks the proper education to deal with and progress through the normal trials and tribulations need not be given another obstacle that further dampens the prospect of their life.

My opponent continues above with the citation of the Code of Federal Regulations and ultimately concludes that, because there are ‘gaping loopholes’ that the federal literature regarding human experimentation is all right…or does he?


Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Do you trust this branch federal government to actually be able to make the correct decisions in determining what is safe or not. Not I!


So the regulations my opponent has brought to the table has resulted in the recognition that ‘informed consent’ is subject to the standards of more than one regulating body. It is allowable by title 45, part 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations to administer taste experiments based on the thumbs up from the FDA or other food authority. Yet I find my opponent absolutely correct when he elaborates to the extent of drawing our attention to the inadequacies of the FDA in recent past. As such…why would we agree with such a haphazard authority, one that my opponent has gone on record that he does not trust?

Furthermore, the loopholes are legal in nature. I do not hold well with uninformed human experimentation just because the law has failed to make absolutely clear where the boundaries are. Indeed, one of the exceptions is such that no personal identity can be traced to the provider of data….” in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.”

…which tells me that, “It ain’t illegal if they don’t get caught.” Why else would the information not be recorded in full, in due fashion? No, I would not have been better served attempting to wade through an inadequate resource.

For code of conduct, I would prefer to use the Declaration of Helsinki, adopted by the World Medical Association in 1964. The first basic principle of the Declaration brings to light the several times my opponent has roughly stated that ‘even the experts don’t know all the possibilities…



Biomedical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles and should be based on adequately performed laboratory and animal experimentation and on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature.[2]


If you don’t know all the possibilities based on theoretical study, animal experimentation, etc….then don’t do it.

Basic Principle Nine shows us exactly what informed consent is:



In any research on human beings, each potential subject mustbe adequately informed of the aims, methods, anticipated benefits and potential hazards of the study and the discomfort it may entail. He or she should be informed that he or she is at liberty to abstain from participation in the study and that he or she is free to withdraw visor her consent to participation at any time.[snip]


Meaningless words? The meaning, I am sure is relative to the subject. Informed consent without disclosure of the potential hazards and reasons for the experiment is grounds for a lawsuit. Maybe an argument for full disclosure to the subject would hinge on covering the liability for the experimenters….

Further, I would cite the Nurnberg Code as well, a precursor to the Helsinki Declaration…



The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent, should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.[3]


The Nurnberg Code was drafted as a response to the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany during World War II. It stipulates directly that the voluntary consent be mandatory and that the subject be able to comprehend the subject matter.

The two prior resources are ethical standards for medical practitioners. How can we trust our experts, as my opponent has stated, if they do not hold to an ethical approach that we expect of them. To go against the subjects’ perspective is to negate that trust…

My opponent argues that for scientific progress to endure, we must acquiesce to the limits of our collective knowledge in order to gain more. He also states quite freely that even the experts don’t have a relevant comprehension of their work. I find that to be an unacceptable argument.

There is no reason to be playing with people’s lives if you don’t know what you are doing. There is no reason to play with people’s lives if you can’t tell them what you are doing.

[1]www.rbs2.com...
[2]www.cirp.org...
[3]www.ushmm.org...


(edit by Vagabond to fix bold tag)

[edit on 28-1-2008 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Kenshiro2012 is late and will forfeit one post.
Memoryshock may continue his argument.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I hope everything is all right with kenshiro2012 and look forward to the continuation of this debate.


Originally posted by kenshiro2012
In order for the greater good, some will suffer. Which is better? That a few people suffer so that the rest of society can enjoy a better life? I for one will say yes.


I pose these questions to kenshiro2012 and you, the reader, rhetorically of course…

Would you suffer for the benefit of mankind?

On the surface, many of us would say yes. The chance to be a hero doesn’t come around very often for any of us. I for one would like to think that I would indeed suffer for the benefit of mankind.

But what if you ‘just suffered’? What if you didn’t know that what was ailing you and/or your life could be attributed to another human? What if the imposition on your life could actually contribute to the progression of our collective comprehension…would you have the capacity to rationalize your displeasure with such an awe inspiring? Likely not.



Originally posted by kenshiro2012
It is necessary in today’s civilization to be pragmatic. There are way too many critical issues facing not only the US but the entire world. Global warming, war, food shortages, Bird Flu, energy shortages, over population, ad nauseum.


My opponent, in his opening argument, cited the above as reason for human experimentation. It doesn’t hold water. We as a species survive. We have survived countless wars, we have survived the Bubonic Plague, we have survived food and energy shortages and we will survive….without using unwitting humans as guinea pigs.

There has never been a catastrophe large enough to wipe our entire species from existence.

Science has a different route that it may take for the answering of the above dangers. Global Warming doesn’t require human subjects for alleviation. We just need cleaner technology. The ‘Bird Flu’ need only be isolated in a petrie dish to further comprehend its’ physiology so as to combat it. There are many different ways one can combat a threat to mankind that do not involve lying to another human. Indeed, we can spend all day looking at the various, legitimate ways to conduct scientific research.

And by allowing uninformed human experimentation, we could be ‘drawing back Pandora’s Curtain’, as it were. Consider the case of Harold Blaur…



While at the Institute, he was injected on five different occasions with three different mescaline derivatives supplied by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps to determine the clinical effects of chemical warfare agents in a research project that was classified secret.[snip]

After the fifth injection, which was 16 times stronger than the previous injection of this new compound, his body stiffened, his teeth clenched, and he began frothing at the mouth for 2 hours until he lapsed into a coma and died.[1]


Harold Blaur voluntarily admitted himself into a Psychiatric Hospital for depression. Why was this necessary? Is war such a huge problem that we require the stealthy experimentation of new chemicals? Further, he was an innocent man seeking help for a serious psychological affliction that is by no means a detractor of physical health if treated correctly. But he wasn’t treated correctly. In fact, the injections speak very loudly that a correct treatment wasn’t in the gameplan. So why was he subjected to scientific research that was being conducted for the destruction of lives, which invariably resulted in the destruction of his life.

The situation pretty much amounts to this:

He went to a hospital for help. He sought medical attention from qualified doctors and found that they had a different agenda. He ended up dead when all he wanted was feel better. What does this say about some of our doctors and the oath they took?

The Hippocratic Oath…



I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life[snip][2]


We live in a society where we trust people everyday with our lives. We have social mores, values, and even laws (as confounding as the literature may be at times) so that we can live together in a relatively peaceful environment. Many people get through there day with a sense of security, because they work at whatever job they have to put food on their table, keep a roof over their head and then some. They know that if their child needs new shoes, they can procure a pair at the local department store. They know that if they or their loved ones get sick, they can visit a hospital to get better. We have built an interconnective society where the role of one person supports the needs and wants of another, and so on.

It’s not OK for someone to betray that trust; the implicit trust that we as a society place within each other day in and day out.

Remember the saying, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away”…?

Considering all of the content I have waded through thus far, I wouldn’t mind having an orchard…..

That is not to say that every doctor is bad….it’s to say that I want every piece of information available if anyone is going to administer anything to this person. Period.

[1]www.rbs2.com...
[2]members.tripod.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Kenshiro2012 has missed two posts. He is disqualified. Memoryshock is the winner.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join