Is this morally justifiable?

Question

A school for mentally retarded children is known for getting infected with a disease. In order to to learn more about the disease, they intentionally infect the newly admitted children with their parents consent. Researchers hoped to use the info gained to prevent future outbreaks. The researchers justified their actions by saying it was inevitable that the kids were going to get infected.

Answer 1

So because the children are incapable of making that decision for themselves the decision made for them is FOR infecting them. Wow. If that were regularly happening in a school, I certainly would not enroll my child there.  

Answer 2

a mans way is right in his own eyes...

you can justify anything, but what matters here is that other people buy into it.

Answer 3

I don't think it is morally justified. The parents may give consent, but the children should give consent too. This is, of course, altered by the fact that they are mentally handicapped and do not, therefore, completely understand just what they are agreeing to. I have 3 retarded cousins, and understand the situation as far as the kids being able to think it through themselves: it isn't really possible for them to make a decision where they know what they are doing. So, to answer your question, I do not believe that this is justified action and I believe it should be stopped immediately. If the parents are eager to help the scientists, because they can think for themselves I think the parents should get infected and become test subjects for the research labs. If it is "inevitable" that the kids, will get infected, then they should not sent the children to the school, especially not in the place where they will become inflicted with this disease. That is my personal opinon

Answer 4

No it's not... They should just stop admitting children and cure the ones that are already infected or use them for research "with their parent's consent." I would never subject my child to anything like that.. What is wrong with people? This isn't really going on, is it?  

Answer 5

I have two words for you h**l NO.

Answer 6

Why would the new children admit if there is a plague going on in the school?

Otherwise I don't think they should infect children under 16 or preferrably under 18 or those mentally ill as they have their own rights and their own destiny to fight the disease.

Answer 7

No.  An incapacited person incable of giving informed consent is deserving of more protection not less.

Answer 8

sounds like Hitler's method of medical experimentation.  Need I say more?

Answer 9

Yes I would say probably so but always with conditions.  What's the disease?  Is it life threatening or carries a risk of permanent damage?  If not then go for it.  Basically its not so much different than an immunization shot (an immunization shot is often a small dose of the actual disease so that the body can develop antibodies on its own).  Its the same concept but on a larger scale.  

It shouldn't make any difference whether they are mentally challenged or not.  Its probably a good idea either way, but like I said there are always conditions and one can't give a final answer until one knows what the actual disease is and what the risks associated are.

Answer 10

...NO its not...than again, we send healthy young men and women to war...

Answer 11

Insufficient details.

Answer 12

It's almost justifiable.  Make sure you have the child's consent as well as the parents.  By all means the parents should have to agree, but in the end if the child doesn't want it then it's not fair that their parents would decide for them.

Answer 13

No, especially because the children are mentally retarded and dont have the ability to make the decision for themselves. Besides, why not study someone who has already been infected.