Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Your personal opinion.

Recommended Posts

I came across this article today, and it struck me as very intriguing. I wondered how many would support this article for "medical research purposes" and how many would be against it. I won't go into full detail about the article, so here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/panel-reveals-details-1940s-experiment-012040543.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand, are you asking if I support the article, or if I support the contents of the article?

I definitely do not support the contents of the article. Back in the 1940s, research such as this was obviously not regulated well, and society had not yet evolved to the point at which morals and ethics had caught up to science.

However, I do support the article, because I think that it's important that news be distributed to people, even if it may be unpleasant, just to serve as a reminder of how far we've come and how dark the past was.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand, are you asking if I support the article, or if I support the contents of the article?

He is asking if you support the content of the article in regards to medical research purposes.

Frankly I am finding it hard to have an absolute opinion of the contents of the article. I am kind of in the gray with I would say it is pretty inhumane in regards to human biological experiments, since there is a high risk of the death of the person. But at the same time we have made great advances in the field of medicine and biology through human and animal experimentation. Human experimentation is often the results of (as least I think) people with severe illnesses, having no money, they offer to volunteer themselves as beta testers for new, uncertain medicine. It is a sad sight to see this.

But I am pretty disgusted that the US paid the Guatemalan government to carry out their biological research. That suggests horrible morals; the fact that it was kept a secret pretty much proves the ulterior motives and principles of the US government at that time. It was not right to do this is their home country, as they was perhaps something they stood against, but paying to have other (3rd world?) countries do their dirty work, things the US claims they are against is pretty hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand, are you asking if I support the article, or if I support the contents of the article?

He is asking if you support the content of the article in regards to medical research purposes.

Frankly I am finding it hard to have an absolute opinion of the contents of the article. I am kind of in the gray with I would say it is pretty inhumane in regards to human biological experiments, since there is a high risk of the death of the person. But at the same time we have made great advances in the field of medicine and biology through human and animal experimentation. Human experimentation is often the results of (as least I think) people with severe illnesses, having no money, they offer to volunteer themselves as beta testers for new, uncertain medicine. It is a sad sight to see this.

But I am pretty disgusted that the US paid the Guatemalan government to carry out their biological research. That suggests horrible morals; the fact that it was kept a secret pretty much proves the ulterior motives and principles of the US government at that time. It was not right to do this is their home country, as they was perhaps something they stood against, but paying to have other (3rd world?) countries do their dirty work, things the US claims they are against is pretty hypocritical.

It's definitely inhumane. However, in today's society, even with human experimentation, the "test subjects" are generally given full knowledge of what may occur, and emphasis is placed on the word "experimental". It's true that it can lead to great advances, but how it's done today is much different than the 1940s.

"Perhaps the most disturbing details involved a female syphilis patient with an undisclosed terminal illness. The researchers, curious to see the impact of an additional infection, infected her with gonorrhea in her eyes and elsewhere. Six months later she died."

For one, researchers don't perform experiments on people by being "curious to see the impact" of additional infections. Research is done beforehand, and then experimentation tends to proceed towards animals, which, although sad, is definitely better than what happened to the poor Guatemalans during the 1940s. True, money was traded between the countries in order to further research, but thats how it was in the 1940s, which is why I mentioned that at the point, society had not yet evolved to the point at which morals and ethics had caught up with science.

I may support experimentation, but only when the people involved are 100% sure of what they are getting into, are desperate to try anything, and are willing to contribute to science. It should never be done brutally, nor involve the government performing it on the citizens of another country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For one, researchers don't perform experiments on people by being "curious to see the impact" of additional infections. Research is done beforehand, and then experimentation tends to proceed towards animals, which, although sad, is definitely better than what happened to the poor Guatemalans during the 1940s. True, money was traded between the countries in order to further research, but thats how it was in the 1940s, which is why I mentioned that at the point, society had not yet evolved to the point at which morals and ethics had caught up with science.

To add to that, society will never reach the points where it's morals are good. Science is infinite, but humans are by nature selfish. Some people aren't such great fans of democracy, because have you noticed the trends? One party is elected, they do their damage, and then another party is elected... they do their damage and so forth.

A lot of countries aren't that fond of the US. There was an something regarding an oil conspiracy in the Iraq War, and recently my dad told me that Vietnam (I think) built a museum of all the damage the US has done to them. I'm not trying to insult the US, but in society, almost everyone puts on a face and hides their ulterior motives. We've all seen examples of corrupt government, the response being revolution. Humans, the large lot of them are selfish backstabbing animals. A charismatic leader comes up, captivating people. Perhaps he has good intentions at first, but when he get his hand on power, his whole game plan changes. He starts taking advantage of things, until people throw him off the podium. The cycle repeats.

It truly makes me sad to read that article. TurtleR is right, the world needs to be exposed of the terrible truths and become more aware of what is truly out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to that, society will never reach the points where it's morals are good. Science is infinite, but humans are by nature selfish. Some people aren't such great fans of democracy, because have you noticed the trends? One party is elected, they do their damage, and then another party is elected... they do their damage and so forth.

Well, I'm not sure if I would say that science is infinite or not, which most likely is true, but its also likely that we will never discover all there is to know about science.

And also, science may be farther than morals and ethics in certain respects, but the gap is significantly smaller than before for the sole reason that the parts of science that morals and ethics HAVE caught up to are creating people that are more aware of the difference between right and wrong, thereby creating more advocates for fairness and human rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the article is very one sided... I know it's unethical but then we do need to experiment on human beings because experimenting on animals and then using it in humans doesn't always produce the same effects. nor can we experiment it on plants or non living things.

I bet they already asked for permission from the people who were being the guinea pigs, or from their families. if they agreed to be guinea pigs, then why should we protest? they were aware of the consequences and agreed, so it's nothing wrong. maybe they did want to give up their lives? or maybe they got paid for it and were in a desperate need of money?

anyway the past is the past. there's nothing we could do to change them. it's about how they do it in the current and future generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that article was very, atrocious but i mean the content was. i literally cried :/ No i am extremely against it. I mean they have no right to do such a thing whether the person is sick or already dying. Let them die in peace! :blink: whether they were allowed to do that or not, it goes against their ethics as scientists or whatever they were. It's barbaric.

I don't mind if experiments are conducted unless the people in the experiment consent in participating in it. It's really sad though that they did that and people died, for no reason. Sorry if i sounded harsh but it's very wrong as a human being, to do such stuff to others like that. It's almost like the experiments conducted during the 2nd world war :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember hearing that stuff like this still goes on, but now instead of the US government it is the large pharmaceutical companies going to developing countries and testing their new medications there. It is sad and everything but you have to think of it in another light, consider this thought experiment:

Your child is sick with a new illness, you hear about a new drug that they want to test but have no idea what the effects may be on humans. Now if there is a neighbor's child who has this same illness, wouldn't you rather, as a parent, have the drug tested on someone else's child before your own? It's similar to what the pharmaceutical companies are doing now, if you can avoid testing on your own people you probably will.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Perhaps the most disturbing details involved a female syphilis patient with an undisclosed terminal illness. The researchers, curious to see the impact of an additional infection, infected her with gonorrhea in her eyes and elsewhere. Six months later she died."

It's true that this sort of testing still goes on. However, I think that the BIGGEST issue I have with this sort of testing, is in the quote I posted above.

In the case of your child dying from a new illness, at least the testing would have a PURPOSE. The purpose to, hopefully, improve my child's health. And being desperate, there's a good chance I might agree to the experimental treatment.

However, I would NEVER give up my child to researchers that may perform experiments on him/her simply because they are "curious to see the impact" of additional infections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if it furthers understanding about the disease and how it behaves under different conditions so that they can help future children with the disease, it seems more justified, right? Human curiosity is such a curious thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm yes, human curiosity is certainly a curious thing.

However, science without morals is just evil. It's not ethical to do things for the sake of curiosity when someone's life may be at stake. Just because it may (and this is a very big MAY, as there's a slim chance that an experiment guided by curiosity without background research will be very useful) save future children does not mean we can subject current children to suffering without due cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it's the risk, no? if you experiment, your guinea pig might be hurt or even die but if you don't experiment, there will be no technology improvement. because as I said you can't experiment on animals or plants and then use it on humans. need to experiment on humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but what I'm trying to emphasize is that doing experimentation based only on "curiosity" and no background research at all, that is just unethical if you perform it on a human in which there could be long-term, or even short-term, consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you think about this then:

you are asked to be a guinea pig. you'll be paid a high amount of money but you are told there are risks of side effects or even death. but if you happen to be infected or something, instead of being cured you'll be killed and if you die there you go.

I think being killed is a lot better than suffering because then you cut unemployment rates and you don't have to spend money to reduce the pain, don't have to bother other people, don't have to be sad etc when you will eventually die anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you think about this then:

you are asked to be a guinea pig. you'll be paid a high amount of money but you are told there are risks of side effects or even death. but if you happen to be infected or something, instead of being cured you'll be killed and if you die there you go.

I think being killed is a lot better than suffering because then you cut unemployment rates and you don't have to spend money to reduce the pain, don't have to bother other people, don't have to be sad etc when you will eventually die anyway.

The woman in the article wasnt killed. She received an additional infection out of "curiosity", and then died after suffering for 6 months.

Also, just because someone is willingly volunteering to be a guinea pig doesnt give others to right to take advantage of that willingness and do whatever they want.

Also, I don't see what unemployment rates have to do with this. It also doesn't matter if suffering or dying quickly is better. It's about the experimentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unethical but people do it anyway. Morals are trashed in order to seek further knowledge. In the real world, the matter of ethics does not matter as much, despite how much it is "emphasized" in the media.

Although we may believe it is unethical even if one innocent life is sacrificed to save hundreds or thousands in the future through biological experimentation, I feel it is deemed a good enough justification for society to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unethical but people do it anyway. Morals are trashed in order to seek further knowledge. In the real world, the matter of ethics does not matter as much, despite how much it is "emphasized" in the media.

Although we may believe it is unethical even if one innocent life is sacrificed to save hundreds or thousands in the future through biological experimentation, I feel it is deemed a good enough justification for society to do it.

Just because "people do it anyways" does not mean it should still be done.

Morals dont always have to be trashed in order to seek further knowledge. If that's what people do, they obviously havent learnt enough.

Also, you claim that ethics does not matter much in the real world, but with that attitude, how can people be expected to make the correct decisions in the first place?

There's a very thin line between experimenting on volunteers for curiosity, before we move on to repeating history and experimenting on prisoners, and then experimenting on anyone, without due cause. There's no "justification" when you choose to cause unnecessary suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just because someone is willingly volunteering to be a guinea pig doesnt give others to right to take advantage of that willingness and do whatever they want.

I think the experimenters didn't "take advantage" of the willingness. I mean, it's their willingness that is risky. if they are aware of it and still willing to do it, then the experimenters can't be blamed. it's not like they know the guinea pig is 100% surely gonna suffer or die and they purposely do the experiment.

I don't think science can be mixed with ethics... when you're talking about science don't be ethical because it hinders the possibility of amazing scientific discoveries.

oh and I remember talking about ethics in class... I can't remember what about it but I remember when being asked about something ethical, a friend of mine said: who cares anyway?

the current generation doesn't value ethical or moral values as much as the previous so I don't think this is a big deal. anyway it had happened. you can't sue the experimenters now or something.

Also, I don't see what unemployment rates have to do with this.

lol. there is less population. so the figure is reduced. never mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just because someone is willingly volunteering to be a guinea pig doesnt give others to right to take advantage of that willingness and do whatever they want.

I think the experimenters didn't "take advantage" of the willingness. I mean, it's their willingness that is risky. if they are aware of it and still willing to do it, then the experimenters can't be blamed. it's not like they know the guinea pig is 100% surely gonna suffer or die and they purposely do the experiment.

I don't think science can be mixed with ethics... when you're talking about science don't be ethical because it hinders the possibility of amazing scientific discoveries.

oh and I remember talking about ethics in class... I can't remember what about it but I remember when being asked about something ethical, a friend of mine said: who cares anyway?

the current generation doesn't value ethical or moral values as much as the previous so I don't think this is a big deal. anyway it had happened. you can't sue the experimenters now or something.

Also, I don't see what unemployment rates have to do with this.

lol. there is less population. so the figure is reduced. never mind.

If you have a person in a desperate situation, and tempt them with money or the slim possibility of some cure, don't you think their willingness is a decision that hasnt been fully thought out?

The experimenters can be blamed if they didn't at least TRY to exercise caution or think about the consequences at all. Doctors don't operate with the mindset of "Ok, well they walked into this hospital not knowing 100% whether theyre going to live or not, so lets just cut them up right away and see! After all, we aren't 100% sure it will make them better or not."

Its imperative that you mix science with ethics. Without ethics, science would be at the mercy of people who simply are interested in finding answers, regardless of if they help or not. You cant treat people in life like the pawns of a chess game. Albert Einstein himself regretted his discoveries because it led to the Manhattan Project.

And if everyone simply operated under the idea "who cares, the current generation doesnt", then society would never advance. What if the topic of discussion had been about science or education? And someone said "who cares, the current generation doesnt" does that make it right to not pursue science or education at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.