Debate

answer this question

Debate Question

Is human experimentation wrong ?

First off I don't see much wrong with the process of experimenting on humans, as long as the reasons for doing so are beneficial and/or valid.

So I ask is human experimentation completely and utterly wrong ?

And if you believe it isn't wrong, then until what point does the act of experimenting on a human (live or dead) cross the line and become wrong ?
 Ryuuikari posted over a year ago
next question »

Debate Answers

LaDispute said:
I only agree with human experimentation in certain contexts.

1. The person has to be willing. To use a corpse, the person needs to have given consent while still alive. It is completely and totally wrong to use someone as an object without their consent.

2. Whatever's being tested should be relatively safe. What I mean is that prior tests should be done in labs to minimize the risk of major harm to the person.

3. As you said, ethics definitely plays a role in that I only agree with human experimentation as long as it's beneficial to society (as should be decided by some sort of international ethics panel).

If any of those criteria aren't met, then that's crossing the line into what's immoral.

 select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
How much testing do you think should be done in the lab beforehand, exactly?
ImAnEasel posted over a year ago
Hiding 12 comments... click to show.
*
Same here!
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
*
I do hope that changes, though. I think we're eventually going to get to the point at which we can either simulate organ systems with models or with computer programs, and I think we'll arrive at that point within the next two decades. It would be nice to reduce animal testing levels.
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
bri-marie said:
I'm pretty okay with human experimentation, so long as the human was made aware of any and all potential side effects, and gave their full consent.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
ImAnEasel said:
My opinions:

I think experimenting on criminals (and I mean really DESPICABLE criminals) is far better, morally, than experimenting on animals. I also think it will have more accurate results, when testing human medicine. Besides, people would be less likely to commit crimes.

I think experimenting on dead humans is also fine, but only if their family/friends agree to it.

More medicines and better medicines make the world a better place. ^.^
 select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
I agree with you completely on that one. I do believe the strides forward we'd make medically would be drastic.
Ryuuikari posted over a year ago
Hiding 27 comments... click to show.
*
I'm talking about we bypass experimentation in animals altogether (and I think ImAnEasel is on the same track). I can see where you're coming from there. Although in my warped way of thinking, I think the benefits of the results from this testing greatly outweigh the drawbacks of using heinous criminals.
Ryuuikari posted over a year ago
*
I can see where you're coming from, I just don't think we can go so far in sacrificing our values for the sake of scientific advancement. Bypassing animal experimentation places a strong risk on any human experimentation because this is the first time the drug would be tested in any system more complex than a test tube. It's guaranteed to cause harm. It would be one thing if you could at least be certain that it either causes minimal harm or death, but the strata of damage is going to be large depending upon the drug. Some people are going to end up wracked with pain or paralyzed. Some are going to experience terrible brain damage or partial organ failure. These people won't die quickly, and some won't die from these at all. I get that they're criminals, but this is nothing short of torture.
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
cassie-1-2-3 said:
I don't know what you're asking.

As far as I know, humans are already experimented on. They test drugs and products on humans before they can sell anything.
 select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
Basically, is it right or wrong? That's what's being asked. Also, where would you draw the line?
ImAnEasel posted over a year ago
whiteflame55 said:
I'd say that clinical trials are, in effect, human experimentation. They're based in necessity, but they are essentially experimentation on humans, just with a very strong idea of what the outcome might be based off of preclinical trials on animals.

I do, however, see a distinct problem with experimenting from the stage of "we've only seen it in vitro". For those who don't know, in vitro is a study not taking place in a living being. These studies are often way too incomplete to provide a reasonable picture of the dangers involved in utilizing a drug or treatment. As such, it puts lives at risk, since there's no conceivable way that a doctor can assess the risks involved based solely off of these tests.

So to get to the answer I provide: it's not wrong as long as the people in question provide full consent and understand the risks involved. There are ethical concerns involved with paying people to participate, but that's another story. If they're dead, the only consent comes while they're living, and that consent is required to conduct such experimentation.
 select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
T045tToastToAsT said:
I'm okay with human experimentation as long if it's safe and the person that is experimented on volunteered for it.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
next question »
Cookies help us bring you Fanpop. By using Fanpop, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More Got It!