Obviously there is only so far animal testing can go in there search for new medicine and vaccines. The only way to ensure effectiveness is sometimes to use data from direct human research. However, some research is inherently life threatening and volunteers cannot be used.
In the search for a vaccine against HIV or a cure for cancer etc., do you think it is morally justifiable to experiment on the most reformable convicted murderers? For example, if a vaccine against HIV were developed it would take years of testing on individuals at risk of contracting HIV to prove effectiveness. It is inherently difficult to prove if the vaccine or medicine was effective in these conditions. However, if we allowed experiments on serious criminals we could find an effective vaccine (or even cure) in a fraction of that time. If this allows us to create an even partially successful vaccine for HIV even 6 months faster, then it will still saves many thousands in the third world and beyond.
I personally think the ends would justify the means used to discover this. While I think the death penalty is useless and unjustifiable because it only serves the purpose of revenge, I feel in a way these people will be giving back to a society they took so much from. It goes without saying that we would try and reduce the risk as much as possible, and consider each experiment for its scientific worthiness. Medical science can be greatly aided by discoveries that are deemed unethical admittedly by most, but what of the greater good?
Finally, I can understand the comparisons with what the n***s did – but they used medical experiments of innocent and vulnerable people mostly to prove ludicrous racial theories. These were not used to aid humanity but to find new ways to destroy life. I don't support what the Dr. Mengele or the n***s did in any way. My greatest concern in my profession is to save and improve lives, and sometimes this takes difficult decisions.
Please take a moment to consider this before answering.
Tags: