In order to prevent the need to test new expiramental drugs on animals, why not test these expiramental drugs on inmates who are in prison for the rest of their lives with no possibility of parole???
After all...shouldn't they contribute to society in some positive way???
2007-09-05 06:48:04 · 15 answers · asked by Adam G 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Being someone who has worked in a biomedical research lab, I can admit that I have actually thought of this same idea before.
Pros - This would be the most accurate way to truly test the effect of new drugs on humans......That's about it. While this truely would be an invaluable way to get scientific data, there's a few issues.
Cons (no pun intended) - First off, if such testing were allowed, it could only be on a volunteer basis. While inmates have less rights than you and I, they still have rights that must be maintained. Forcing them to become a lab rat would just be inhumane. They would also have to be given full disclosure to the known information about the experimental drug. They could receive special amenities for volunteering, as research subjects usually are needed to be kept on a nutritious diet. Ultimately, as long as no inmate is being coerced into it, and they fully understand the consequences, then it would be fine. From a scientific point of view, most animal research is done on animals who already have a problem or genetic defect. Such testing would not work with inmates because they would not all fit the criteria (i.e. experimental allergy medication would not work on an inmate with no known allergies). I also believe there is a law that forbids the torture of inmates. Even if it's voluntary, an experimental drug that has a side effect of renal failure for instance, would lead to a drawn out and agonizing death to the test subject. No person would volunteer for that, even if there was some sort of positive incentive. Lastly, for statistical purposes, experimental drug testing is done with hundreds of test subjects to provide more accurate data. I don't believe that there would be enough inmates on death row or have life in prison (if everyone volunteered) to test more than 2 or 3 drugs.
In the end, it would be very hard for such a volunteer program to be instated if only a few drugs could get tested before the program runs out of volunteers. In addition, the types of experimental drugs that could be used would be very limited. Therefore, it would be kinda pointless for researchers to go great lengths in creating such a program which would yield data for only a few drugs, even if it's slightly more accurate.
2007-09-06 10:11:53 · answer #1 · answered by Shortstuff71 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am for the death penalty . And, while I don't agree with your idea (its too close to what the Nazis did), I can understand your feelings
However, when it comes to death penalty and suspending other rights of prisoners, I have one problem... this assumes that everyone in jail deserves to be there. There have been many (and I do mean many, not just one or two isolated cases) when innocent men have been placed on death row. Also, there is the simple fact that sentences and 'Justice' are not meted out fairly. It is a simple truth that is if you have identical crimes and evidence, the white and/or rich guy will get a lighter sentence than the minority and/or poor person will.
Until we can be 100 percent sure of someone's guilt and of fair application of the law, we cannot take actions like you describe. Remember, it is possible that you may one day be accused of a crime (whether or not you are guilty) and these rights and laws will protect you.
2007-09-05 14:08:11 · answer #2 · answered by Wundt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. We are supposed to be a modern country that doesn't do cruel and unusual punishment (see bill of rights) not like a medieval kingdom that tortures people or like a certain country that conducted medical experiments on inmates in the 1930's and 40's. However, I am not against this if the prisoners volunteer for it.
2007-09-05 13:58:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the ones who have a life sentence or who are on death row should i mean way not we the people pay on an average about 30,000 dollars a year for one inmate we should get something for our money
2007-09-05 13:56:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds good to me. Im sure if most of them could get a high from it they would love it. Besides, sedating most of them would help the officers at the prisons. HA
2007-09-05 13:54:26 · answer #5 · answered by mgchristyn 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should test the drugs on politicians.
2007-09-05 13:56:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i've been asking the same question for years.
i also think that the ones in for nonviolent crimes can go to war (which, remember, we are not in. lol) to reduce their sentences. the ones in for violent crimes we should just send over there (one way ticket).
2007-09-05 13:56:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If they agree to it, sure. But you will still need to do animal tests first to determine if it's safe enough for human testing.
2007-09-05 13:55:30 · answer #8 · answered by Michael C 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I would totally support this, for people on death row, murderers, or people who commit sex crimes.
2007-09-05 13:57:36 · answer #9 · answered by Lindsey J 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and experimental, very painful surgeries too!!
2007-09-05 13:53:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋