What is more important : rights of the individual or the good of society?
Is experimentation wrong? What if there are boundaries or limitations – does your answer change?
What about the experiments that aren’t harmful, is it fair to pick and choose what types of experiments are allowed?
Why are the Nazis hated when Burma and Darfur are similar situation, yet don’t get as much criticism or media?
Should we use the information from human experimentations? What about if the subjects were volunteers?
Should experiments with low risk of pain or death be legal?
Should nations make the Nuremberg Code law?
What are your thoughts on U.S. companies finding loopholes and experimenting on foreigners?
Should human experimentation be allowed if experimenters use themselves as subjects? If no, consider every day experiments that people do on themselves – using new products.
If yes, then shouldn’t suicide be legal as well? What’s the difference between the two?
Would experiments be more acceptable if subjects were more literate, educated, and understood the rules instead of prisoners or mentally retarded?
If we can’t use research from previous human experimentations, have they suffered in vain?
If we can’t use research from previous human experimentations, should we take back the progress we’ve made with cured diseases, and shrinking infant mortality rate?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
That is alot to think about.
I like that you brought this topic up and made a blog of questions...Will you answer them and tell us how we should think and debate the topic or are we suppose to just tell you how we think?
~T
http://progressiveu.org/224505-bitter-friend-sweet-enemy
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
there are a lot of questions there. I was thinking about how to answer them, but I keep arguing with myself. I'll think of something good someday!
The sanity within is overwhelming.
As to the question of what we'd think of experiments that aren't harmful to the subject--we'd first have to figure out a viable definition for "harm". Physical or emotional or psychological? I don't really like the idea of human experimentation, but if the case is that the subjects are willing and are compensated...well if anything goes wrong, they did agree to it, so the company or research team is not to blame.
~ *~
This is a signature, an automated thingy that pops up when I comment, not a demand to see my blog!
Mind Control is Easier Than You Think
Can you say your head is overfilled with questions? Well it does seem weird that all this research we have done over the years, seems to go down the drain and we try to research the same product because now we believe there is something dangerous in it. But shouldn't we have traced that the first time we experimented with it? Good blog.
Morally, we shouldn't experiment on people. The only exception should be if people volunteer themselves as test subjects for an experiment which has already been demonstrated to be reasonably safe. It's not the same as suicide, because in a "reasonably safe" experiment, there should not be any immediate risk of bodily harm or death.
The Darfur and Burmese situations are not all that different from the Holocaust. During the Nazi mass killings themselves, no one outside of the concentration camps had a clear idea of what was going on. Only with the perspective of history have we looked back and seen what a horror the Holocaust was. It will probably be the same for the situations in Darfur and Burma. Unfortunately, this will be far too late for those currently in danger.
The first ethical issue in ANY experiment should always be the safety of the participants. I do, however, feel that exceptions can be made for terminal patients who provide written consent for experimental treatment. Only through experimentation can researchers and scientists discover cures for these terminal diseases. Who knows, a few lives may even be saved due to these trials.