Medical Testing On Prisoners

Human experimentation has always been a topic of ethical controversy, recently the draw towards this practice has become increasingly more appealing; due to the expanding medical advancements and progress within the last decade. It is obvious why experimenting on humans is an attractive option, but how far can we push these experiments before it's considered criminal and inhumane? Many medical researchers push for the use of human experimentation because of the general good that these experiments may have on not only the medical community but also the general public. However, there are many ethical questions that need to be addressed before such experiment is conducted.

Research ranged from bubble baths to mild altering drugs being tested for the Army. Throughout the article, Greta De Jong emphasizes how brutal the prisons were, almost forcing research upon their inmates; sometimes labeled to the extent of torture. She also talks about how recently there have been attempts to scientists to revive medical research programs in U.S. jails, but with ensured ethical treatment.

I feel particularly angry about this situation because I believe that the inmates felt obligated to do the testing. Also, the ones performing the experiments did not inform the inmates of what they were being experimented with therefor the prisoners could not make an informed decision. It also angers me

Potential grave consequences that can result from irresponsible, or criminal, medical experiments. While we must be vigilant to protect innocent victims from such experimentation we cannot let that stifle our duty to continue making advances in healthcare and improving the lives of patients.

First and foremost no harm should be caused towards participants and that was certainly not the case during this experiment. During the experiment the “inmates” had to experience psychological harm from the “guards” and Dr. Zimbardo himself. The first sight of psychological harm began as soon as the “inmates” entered the “prison”. As stated on the Stanford Prison Experiment website, the “inmates” had to take part in a degradation procedure where they were stripped naked and then deloused with a spray in order to convey a belief that the “inmates” may have germs or lice. The “inmates” were also dressed in a dress with nothing worn underneath while also having to wear a heavy chain on one leg that had to be worn at all times which was uncommon in real-world prisons. This was done in order to show that the “inmates” were lesser than the “guards” which can be really harmful towards ones psyche. Although Dr. Zimbardo was trying to create a real-world prison for the experiment, the mental stability of his participants should

In the 1940’s, post World War II, the Nuremberg trials were held. The Nuremberg Trials were for Nazi German officers who had participated in the planning of the atrocities done to the Jewish people during the holocaust. One of the charges was experimentation of Jewish people from concentration camps, similar to how we treat our prisoners in Jails today. Prisoners are a very vulnerable population who have been tested on for a long time, many unethical tests have been done to penitentiaries across the country and many times they are forced to test by employees of the prisons. The ethics of allowing prisoners to participate in medical research is very wrong and should not be admitted to.

The Stanford Prison experiment was performed to discover the phycological impacts of a prison environment. Conducted by Dr Philip Zimbardo on August 14,1971, 12 prisoners and 12 guards were chosen and each payed $15 per day. Intending to run for a period of two weeks the experiment abruptly stopped due to unforeseen outcomes of increasingly damaging and disturbing behavioural activity. Displaying a failed attempt in following ethical guidelines, the experiment violates withdrawal rights, harm was present and informed consent was not obtained. The study does not pass the standards necessary to be considered a true “scientific experiment” and could not be reperformed today as it shows little ethical merit.

The guards were told to do whatever they wanted and this frustrated the prisoners because of how they had abused their authority. The scientists should have tried to control the experiment a little better. Rather than telling the guards to do whatever they wanted, they should have given them specific tasks to complete. The media could not have prevented this because they were not allowed to be involved and they could not fix the damage that was already done. The public could have protested against the harsh treatment of the participants and demanded compensation c them. However, they were probably already bound in a contract and thy did receive money for their participation. The best thing for us to do is have a third party manage these experiments and they should be approved by an official Research Organization before thy can proceed with the

The biggest reason to test inmates instead of animals is that animals haven’t done anything to hurt another being. Animals, both wild and domesticated, do their best just to live, versus humans who go against their own sense of morals. As a species, we have forged rules to keep us alive, and yet there are those who break these laws. It states in Prisoners Should Be Used For Medical Experiments Without Their Consent, “The act of violating the law in this manner is to sacrifice one’s full protection of rights by the Constitution,” meaning that once you choose to do something

Looking at the legal side of things, we can call upon tort law. “A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, committed against a person or property for which a court provides a remedy in form of action for damages” (Pozgar, 2103). Although these people being experimented on are in fact prisoners, they are still human beings and deserve respect for human rights, “The fourteenth Amendment of the United States states that all citizens should have equal protection rights” (GPO). These prisoners may have been sentenced to death, but it shall be done humanly. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted" (Walker). Medical experimentation that can lead to one’s death defiantly fits the bill for cruel and unusual punishment. Medical experimentation against prisoners on death row also violates the principle of Proportionality for Retributive Justice. This essentially means that the punishment must fit the crime. They are

Dating back to 1965, seventy-five prisoners at Holmesburg prison in Pennsylvania were purposely exposed to a poisonous agent. This study was conducted to determine the effects of dioxin, a potentially harmful substance. Dermatologist Dr. Albert Kligman, exposed prisoners to a dosage 468 times greater than the required dosage for the experiment. All evidence has been destroyed; however, participants are still experiencing dermatologic issues. As a result of research and experiments like these conducted in prisons, the Department of Health,

Since the 20th century, the procedure that took place to prepare the prisoner for medical testing hasn’t changed drastically over the years; especially in prisons in the United States. Holmesburg is a prison in Philadelphia that housed many diverse kinds and forms of pharmaceuticals tested, and the US army forces are one of the many famous sponsors of Holmesburg (Hornblum, 1997). For the procedure to start, the most vital foundation is the consent from the subject. After the subjects sign the consent form, they would be debriefed and interviewed about the experiment. Debriefing about experiments wasn’t common in Holmesburg prison and researchers would just reply vaguely; the samples that were to be tested were also just numbered and sometimes

This treatment made other people look at prisons bad as well as social experimenters. So. Scientists can put their hypothesis to the test. These social experiments are especially beneficial to psychologists and sociologists. Although, the trauma done to the volunteers and the thoughts put into society make the bad outweigh the

In my opinion the limitations of the study consisted of many strengths by prohibiting physical violence, limiting the work hours of the guards, and by evaluating the inmates mental health while the experiment was being conducted. The limitations of the research resulted from the legal limitations set forth by the state they could only legally do so many things within the rights of the

My position on this issue is not one sided, but looking at the two views, I have made my judgments. Animal testing is difficult on the animals and is not something to take lightly, although it is needed under some circumstances. When talking about medicine and the health risk that would be taken by the public it is easy to say that we do need animals testing these medicines. These animals suffer for our wellbeing, but they do not need to be trapped in cages all their lives or killed after the testing. That is just plain cruel, these animals deserve to be let free after they have done their job, put in a rehab before they can be adopted by the public. Also, animals need to be protected while in labs, they must have all the accommodations and