That is only a step away from Hitler's Germany. The moment we regard anyone less than human we are capable doing the most inhuman acts imaginable.

To suggest this is less than human if you are seriously contemplating this type of testing. Its only a short step from there into making any one of us less than human and therefore condoning all kinds of atrocities. Isn't there enough horror already?

Originally posted by gypsy1035
I have been saying that same thing for years! Why should tax payer dollars be spent taking care of murders/child rapists etc when we have a great ready made supply of people for testing. It is brilliant and economical, as soon as we are done with them we can dispose of them.

I concur animals should NOT be experimented on, not when we have the scum of the earth in human form at our disposal.

Great post... I would like to see this come to pass.

No one is a scum of the earth ..Not even God considers anyone as scum of the earth ..in fact he says repent and I will have mercy towards you and heal your wickedness ...
The bible even says ALL SINS ARE EQUAL ..if you HATE your brother or anyone then YOU ARE ALSO A MURDERER .....
So maybe some of you who hate need to be tested on and disposed of too ..
Thank God some of you are not in charge right now .

Originally posted by Simplynoone
No one is a scum of the earth ..Not even God considers anyone as scum of the earth ..in fact he says repent and I will have mercy towards you and heal your wickedness ...
The bible even says ALL SINS ARE EQUAL ..if you HATE your brother or anyone then YOU ARE ALSO A MURDERER .....
So maybe some of you who hate need to be tested on and disposed of too ..
Thank God some of you are not in charge right now .

Trust me...I understand the bible...but can you honestly tell me...that the man who goes out...and mass murders 3 14 year olds...rapes 4 of them...then steals the school bus..will be judged the same as a man who steals a grape from the supermarket ??? Come on now...let's get serious..

We can't collectively condone testing people without their knowledge or consent. We just can't. I know it sounds good, I know it makes some economic sense, I know the idea has a feeling of revenge or justice or satisfaction associated with it to a lot of people, but we just can't do it. Not and remain a "civilized" society, we can't.

However, if we stop and think about I think we all know or suspect that the government - at least the US government in the form of the FDA - and/or the pharmaceutical companies are already conducting clinical trials on the general public. How many drugs in the past few years have been recalled or are associated with class action lawsuits? Ever think it might be cheaper to SELL the drugs to people who need them, and then pay some settlement damages if it doesn't work out, than to properly conduct human trials with sufficient numbers of patients to make the results meaningful? Something to think about, perhaps?

There is some evidence to suggest that military personnel are being used in clinical trials without their knowledge or consent, and although I can understand WHY they do it, I still find it reprehensible and unacceptable. There's a crappy little clause in the enlistment contract that basically states that your body becomes the property of Uncle Sam. For example, one of my friends carelessly got a very bad sunburn. After returning to duty, he was charged with "damaging government property," found guilty, and had to serve extra duty. I suspect that this clause was originally made part of the enlistment contract so the military (or the government) couldn't be sued over people who were injured or killed on duty, but nowadays I think they are taking advantage of it for other purposes.

There are some populations that I think could be used in medical trials for a win-win. The homeless, for example. The drug companies could offer them a place to live, food, and clothing in exchange for being part of the trial. This might be useful for trials used to determine the side effects of some drugs, which are usually temporary and not too severe.

Ultimately, most drugs that need to be tested on humans these days are drugs intended to treat or cure a disease, illness, or condition, or lessen the symptoms thereof, and as such their efficacy can only be determined by testing them on people who have that particular disease or condition. Thus, in order to make clinical trials on criminals worthwhile, we would first have to induce the disease, assuming it is one that we CAN induce. And if you take all that into consideration, it's probably not worth it even if we decided such action was acceptable.

Originally posted by StretchUSAF I would rather donate my body to science to help my fellow man...I would rather them find out that I was innocent AFTER they take me out.

haha I like your thinking on the last part except for the fact that you wouldn't be around to see justice served.

Mind if I throw in a question? (gonna assume you don't) My problem with testing in general is two fold. Some of the testing is done for superficial purposes.... in other words cosmetic. I am more of a natural beauty type person. I like to see people for who they are and not "what" they pretend to be (although admittedly, I thank the "gods" for items such as deoderant and hairspray, I still make sure that products are not tested on subjects other than willing human beings).

Other testing, i am sure the type you are referring to, is done for medicinal purposes. This, to me anyway, just isn't worth testing. What are we trying to do? I just think that the earth has a natural way of dealing with population and our interfering with that is more detrimental to what our assignment was than not having cures for what "troubles" us.

Don't you think in the long run, it is better just to let nature run its course in each individual as it sees fit? (granted, I will admit that if one of my two babies were, GOD FORBID, dying of something that could prevented through series of testings a certain medicine, I would be grateful to you for allowing yourself to be tested on so that they could live longer.... but I understand that is my being biased toward my offspring).

[edit on 20-10-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by StretchUSAF The testing that I am referring to would be that of major medical breakthrough's...ie: AIDS, CANCER, STD's..etc etc..

I agree with you that Natural Selection...Survival of The Fittest, and predetermined fate play an important role...but the chance of being able to say that "WE" defeated cancer...that "WE" destroyed AIDS, and "WE" can control diseases would be a GREAT thing!

Also...as many others stated..and by MANY I mean...a few...that people rotting away in jail is taxing...to the American tax payer...to the others in jail..that are there for petty crimes...and being harassed by the murderer's....it's not fair for us to have to foot the bill for some Bad Eggs..

Which brings up a question I've been trying to figuire out for a long time...
Why do they sterilize the needle used for lethal injection????? MAKES NO SENSE!!

I have no proof and so don't expect you and in fact, don't encourage you to take me at my word, but I have a gut instinct that things like cancer, aids, etc were things that we brought onto this earth through unnatural means. I guess the reason I "feel" that way is that I honestly have no concept of death. It doesn't register in my brain and yet so many other things that I had not been taught WAS naturally implemented into my brain.

I just wonder how many of the diseases were brought about by our straying from nature and thus, maybe letting go of the meaningless superficial world could help us more than coming up with cures.. although we have not come up with cures and me thinks there is a reason why .

I am with you on the point about the needles used for the lethal injections. Me? I personally think it would be more effecient to just put a bullet to the brain... but I am old school like that. Stoning would work as well.. lots of stones laying around. I am not a humanist, but I am very much for the natural order of things (as I type this out on my laptop. hahaha)

[edit on 20-10-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by StretchUSAF
Which brings up a question I've been trying to figuire out for a long time...
Why do they sterilize the needle used for lethal injection????? MAKES NO SENSE!!

Okay, I admit I think this is pretty strange as well. Are we sure they do, or is this an urban legend? Strange either way, but not really the point of this thread.

OP, you knew this was gonna be controversial, and I applaud you for your willingness to float an idea even if it would upset some.

I am in complete and utter disagreement with the idea of using prisoners as test subjects in any case in which they would not be test subjects if they were non-criminals.

In other words, if a prisoner is diagnosed with cancer, I think they should have the right to apply to participate in ongoing treatment experiments.

I think it would be wrong to offer prisoners the opportunity to participate "voluntarily" in other chemical testing (I also think it's wrong to use the homeless or addicts in such tests). Why? because they are in a non-free environment where the possibility of being forced to participate against their own best long-term interest is far too high. There are just too many opportunities for abuse in the prison system to trust that prisoners would be treated humanely, would be adequately educated about the dangers, and would not face either punishment for failure to agree to testing or unethical pressure to agree to testing.

I can't begin to see how it would be okay to use prisoners as mandatory test subjects. Yes, some of them have committed terrible acts and may not deserve humane treatment.

But I deserve to live in a humane society. We are not the scum of the earth, and should not degrade our fellow humans the way they have degraded others. We are better than that.

I can't accept in any way the argument that it would be financially responsible to use humans this way – human life, health, and dignity should not be measured in money. In the case of reparations for harm done (e.g. medical malpractice), this is the only possible way to recompense a victim for what they have already lost. But it would not be acceptable for a drug company to start offering payouts to people for, for example, being exposed to HIV so that they could become test subjects.

There are also big practical problems with this suggestion. One reason that lab animals are used is that they can be killed and dissected before their natural life has run its course. Another is that effects can be tracked into future generations. They can be genetically modified to test specific cases. And so on.

In other words, many if not most of the medical uses of lab animals would be impossible to replicate on prisoners, whose background, health history, activity, etcetera, are uncontrolled.

But really, for me, what it comes down to is: I despise these people for dehumanizing others. If I dehumanize them, how can I not despise myself?

Dont yall think they already have plenty of people they experiment on for Aids and Cancer etc ..

I know my Stepdad allowed the VA to use him for test drugs for Agent Orange .
I know some people who have aids who volunteer to take new stuff not tested to try and help find cures ...I also know people with Cancer who take stuff untested to help them find a cure ...
Anyone who is sick already I believe would more than likely volunteer to be a test subject if there was even a remote chance it could work ..they would do it ....willingly ...

It is my own personal opinion that they already have cures for alot of things .But sickness means money to them ..Cancer is a real money maker ..Drugs another ...So why would they actually come out with a cure ? They wouldnt.

I have no problem with it at all, but only when it comes to violent criminals, which would include murderers, rapists and what not. I would say that criminals of such caliber would be more productive as test subjects rather than just rotting away in prison. It certainly beats testing on innocent animals, be it dogs, cats, hamsters, bunnies, etc...

[edit on 20-10-2008 by laiguana]

What if these tests to be done are on curing or easing the propenisty of their criminal behavoir.......

Example. Set up a pedophile with a brain scan on and have him watch a movie with little boys or girls...... analyze his thought patterns and say you noticed a spike when the movie of a baby in a bath tub showed up....

Apply test drug or surgery...... repeat experiment and perhaps see if anything's changed in his desire or lusting thought towards his prey. Was it reduced or even .....cured? or even no change....

Something alongs the lines of that.....

Im not saying test this guy to cure atheltes foot....

Only to be tested on thier possible genetic disposition and propensities...
To act out murders, rapes, pedophilisms and etc..

It may very well be a socialogical conditioning of sorts brought about ones upbringings and environment to commence such acts out. They have pills for everything now why not for murderers and rapers and you know..
Are we not trying to genetically engineer ourselves better..... wether through direct manipulation or indirectly through our supplementation

Can't have a volunteer come about....
"Hey Dr. Im down with this testing this out..."
Dr. says.. "alright my boy head out downtown and rape yourself a little girl or boy even....then string him up with a rope and hang em....I'll see you tomorrow"
" Awesome Doc i'll get right on that........giggity giggity gone...."

Originally posted by Heike
. . . There are some populations that I think could be used in medical trials for a win-win. The homeless, for example. The drug companies could offer them a place to live, food, and clothing in exchange for being part of the trial. This might be useful for trials used to determine the side effects of some drugs, which are usually temporary and not too severe. . . .

To be useful, drug testing needs to be done on individuals who are healthy apart from the disease being looked into. Homeless people generally would not qualify.

Also, you are hardly giving people a free choice if they are pushed out onto the street, and then told there is one way to get a roof over their heads.

Not only that, but it would be too easy, once this was legal, for cities to pick up a busful of indigents and cart them off to a testing facility just to get rid of them. With street-people, who is going to know? They can only tell people if they ever return, and then they won't be listened to anyway.

The problem I see with this type of thinking is the acceptance of the idea that some people's lives are commodities to enrich and enhance the lives of the favored.

The idea that there is a "class" of people who need to die in order to make life worth living for the elite is reprehensible and immoral. Even if the test subjects do not die, and even if they had no side effects whatsoever from the testing, the premise that some people have less value because of their social standing is the beginning of unspeakable acts of inhumanity.

On a side note: I have worked in the prison system and was unafraid to walk the yard among the murderers. Murderers usually are law abiding citizens who commit an act of passion or do something stupid and accidentally cause the death of another then go back to being law abiding citizens. Contrary to popular belief, it is the druggies that are truly criminal minded. They are always looking out only for themselves and how to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Being older, I was not afraid of the pedophiles (although I admit to some hypocrisy in finding them to be subhuman). The rapists were scarey simply because of their predatory nature. In the controlled environment of prison, most were civil to those who treated them with simple human decency and chillingly vengeful to those who did not.

Again, this topic is along the lines of the eugenics and/or euthanasia threads I see in which people are seeking approval or justification for their desire to treat their fellow man as a commodity and not as a fellow human being.

Originally posted by GodshipForAll
What if these tests to be done are on curing or easing the propenisty of their criminal behavoir.......

I think this sort of testing would be covered with other experimental medical studies that I mentioned in my last post, and I agree that prisoners should be allowed to apply for experimental treatments for disorders that they already have, whether it's a physical disease that they develop while in prison (e.g. cancer) or a psychological condition that was part of what drove them to commit the crime in the first place. For a number of reasons that have already been mentioned in this thread, they are often not good candidates as test subjects, so their chances of being accepted to such a protocol are less than those of us on the outside.

I think participation in such studies should be fully voluntary and without recompense other than the potential of relief or cure. I don't think that's the kind of study the OP was talking about, though.

Someone else said in this thread, that jail is the punishment we as a society have decided was appropriate. To force jailed prisoners to participate in medical testing is not only a gross violation of what little privacy remains to them, but undercuts the judicial system.

Finally, I want to thank whitewave for saying so clearly and eloquently what the real problem here is. It is never okay to view a segment af mankind as deserving of death for our convenience.