Many years ago, I might have voted, "no".
However, while working in pharmaceutical R&D, we had an event that changed my mind.
Chimps were used to test a new drug. Sadly, it was learned that the drug weakened the arteries and could cause severe damage to those who would most benefit from it.
Without the animals used to test this, many people would have died if used in clinical trials. The formula was changed, tested, and is now used, safely, by many.
Good Laboratory Practice is specific on how animals can be used and how they are treated. http://www.21cfrpart11.com/files/library/pred_rules/mcdowall_glp_annota…
We have perfectly good test subjects in prison who are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. They should have to pay their debt to society by saving more lives than they took. Humans are the perfect guinea pig for medical research.
If one has a depraved indifference for life and is a murderous threat to society, it would be poetic justice forcing them to serve mankind for the better.
The using inmates as test subject sounds a lot like the whole idea of an eye for an eye system of justice like what they have in Saudi Arabia, and the othe Muslem countries.....steal a loaf of bread get your hand cut off, make out with the wrong man or women get stoned (not in a good way), practice your own religion while denying the "one true faith" you get your head lopped off....it's called "Sharia"......Hitler called using prison inmates for medical experimentation part of a final solution to improve humanity...our Constitution calls it "cruel and unusual punishment".
Edmund, you're not comparing apples to apples at all! If a serial killer or a murderer goes to prison for life without possibility of parole, how is it that you equate it with stealing a loaf of bread or kissing your cousin? I don't get it. Killing someone in cold blood is cruel and unusual punishment.
With your logic, I bet a lot of people consider prison cruel and unusual punishment. Sometimes the lesser of two or more evils needs to be chosen for the betterment of everyone. It's done every day by every person that exists. We all have to judge people for our own sake and safety.
I find nothing cruel and unusual about atoning for what we do. Saving lives in lieu of callously taking lives hardly seems cruel or unusual. In fact, it's completely justifiable. Society has already thrown away the person, never to allow them to be part of free people ever again.
I'm sure whoever conducts the medical research can ensure that the test subject never suffers, unfortunately. (that was sarcasm so don't get your panties in a wad) If using them saves lives, any suffering incurred by them is no worse than the suffering that a chimp endures. That chimp has more right to life than does a murderer.
Killing in cold blood is homicide, it is a pre-meditated crime, not punishment or a sentence of a court. It is not my flawed logic, rather the first ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution it's called "The Bill of Rights" that defines cruel and unusual punishment as a forbidden practice by the government or it's agencies, further it is our courts that define expeimenting on prisoners as cruel and unusual punishment. Our government and our allies tried and convicted people at the Nurnberg Trials then executed them for experimenting on prisoners after WW2.
Your suggestion of experimenting on human prisoners is repugnant and your defense of it when read carefully comes across like the product of a person who exhibits a depraved indifference towards humans.
So executing a convicted killer is okay but saving lives is abhorrent. You're still not comparing apples to apples. When I stated that killing someone in cold blood was cruel and unusual punishment, I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to the victim, not the criminal. It was cruel and unusual for them to be murdered in the first place.
I personally knew a woman who was strangled to death at the hands of two individuals. One of the individuals named Christopher Gifford, was also found guilty of slitting another woman's throat after he had raped her. I do not for the life of me understand how you could find fault with Christopher Gifford being used as a test subject to save lives (something the Nazi's had no interest in).
You fail to be able to differentiate between legitimate, life saving research and what the Nazi's were doing in WWII. Their experimentation in no way had any sane validity for the purpose of improving the quality of life for everyone.
You sound as if you think I believe that all prisoners should be experimented on. I keep repeating myself that only those who are guilty of actually killing people in cold blooded, premeditated murder should repay their debt to society by helping to save lives. In no way, shape or form does that even parallel what the Nazi's were doing.
I'm all for saving lives and yet you say I have a depraved indifference towards humans. Sir, I find your accusations to be unfounded and ignorant.
Edmund, by listening to what you've said, I assume you think that it's perfectly fine to experiment on a chimpanzee that's never done anything to a human being but it's cruel and unusual to conduct research on a murderous, human being. I don't understand how you can put that human above the chimp, ethically.
Doug, you make ascertions as to what I think based on your warped perceptions of reality. You are convinced you are right, that's your right, as is your right to embrace whatever opinions you choose, however you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
Our society does not condone medical experimintation on convicts, our laws prohibit the practice. If you want to explore this subject further I would suggest you take it up with a priest, minister, rabbi, mental health professional. They might be able to explain the why the idea of using convicts is morally and ethically abhorent in terms that even you might understand.
Many years ago, I might have
Many years ago, I might have voted, "no".
However, while working in pharmaceutical R&D, we had an event that changed my mind.
Chimps were used to test a new drug. Sadly, it was learned that the drug weakened the arteries and could cause severe damage to those who would most benefit from it.
Without the animals used to test this, many people would have died if used in clinical trials. The formula was changed, tested, and is now used, safely, by many.
Good Laboratory Practice is specific on how animals can be used and how they are treated.
http://www.21cfrpart11.com/files/library/pred_rules/mcdowall_glp_annota…
I think they should all be
I think they should all be allowed to serve in Congress. They can't be any worse than what we have currently.
I think only if it could
I think only if it could result in a world wide plague that ends in Apes inslaving mankind, it's a good move.
Right on Bud....they would
Right on Bud....they would elevate the level of discourse and bring civility to an otherwise unruly mob that has sold out to the highest bidders....
LOL Charlie! That's what was
LOL Charlie! That's what was running through my mind as well! :) The congress idea is brilliant!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44084236/ns/health-behavior/
We have perfectly good test
We have perfectly good test subjects in prison who are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. They should have to pay their debt to society by saving more lives than they took. Humans are the perfect guinea pig for medical research.
If one has a depraved indifference for life and is a murderous threat to society, it would be poetic justice forcing them to serve mankind for the better.
The using inmates as test
The using inmates as test subject sounds a lot like the whole idea of an eye for an eye system of justice like what they have in Saudi Arabia, and the othe Muslem countries.....steal a loaf of bread get your hand cut off, make out with the wrong man or women get stoned (not in a good way), practice your own religion while denying the "one true faith" you get your head lopped off....it's called "Sharia"......Hitler called using prison inmates for medical experimentation part of a final solution to improve humanity...our Constitution calls it "cruel and unusual punishment".
Edmund, you're not comparing
Edmund, you're not comparing apples to apples at all! If a serial killer or a murderer goes to prison for life without possibility of parole, how is it that you equate it with stealing a loaf of bread or kissing your cousin? I don't get it. Killing someone in cold blood is cruel and unusual punishment.
With your logic, I bet a lot of people consider prison cruel and unusual punishment. Sometimes the lesser of two or more evils needs to be chosen for the betterment of everyone. It's done every day by every person that exists. We all have to judge people for our own sake and safety.
I find nothing cruel and unusual about atoning for what we do. Saving lives in lieu of callously taking lives hardly seems cruel or unusual. In fact, it's completely justifiable. Society has already thrown away the person, never to allow them to be part of free people ever again.
I'm sure whoever conducts the medical research can ensure that the test subject never suffers, unfortunately. (that was sarcasm so don't get your panties in a wad) If using them saves lives, any suffering incurred by them is no worse than the suffering that a chimp endures. That chimp has more right to life than does a murderer.
Sorry, Edmund, I just do not agree with you.
Killing in cold blood is
Killing in cold blood is homicide, it is a pre-meditated crime, not punishment or a sentence of a court. It is not my flawed logic, rather the first ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution it's called "The Bill of Rights" that defines cruel and unusual punishment as a forbidden practice by the government or it's agencies, further it is our courts that define expeimenting on prisoners as cruel and unusual punishment. Our government and our allies tried and convicted people at the Nurnberg Trials then executed them for experimenting on prisoners after WW2.
Your suggestion of experimenting on human prisoners is repugnant and your defense of it when read carefully comes across like the product of a person who exhibits a depraved indifference towards humans.
So executing a convicted
So executing a convicted killer is okay but saving lives is abhorrent. You're still not comparing apples to apples. When I stated that killing someone in cold blood was cruel and unusual punishment, I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to the victim, not the criminal. It was cruel and unusual for them to be murdered in the first place.
I personally knew a woman who was strangled to death at the hands of two individuals. One of the individuals named Christopher Gifford, was also found guilty of slitting another woman's throat after he had raped her. I do not for the life of me understand how you could find fault with Christopher Gifford being used as a test subject to save lives (something the Nazi's had no interest in).
You fail to be able to differentiate between legitimate, life saving research and what the Nazi's were doing in WWII. Their experimentation in no way had any sane validity for the purpose of improving the quality of life for everyone.
You sound as if you think I believe that all prisoners should be experimented on. I keep repeating myself that only those who are guilty of actually killing people in cold blooded, premeditated murder should repay their debt to society by helping to save lives. In no way, shape or form does that even parallel what the Nazi's were doing.
I'm all for saving lives and yet you say I have a depraved indifference towards humans. Sir, I find your accusations to be unfounded and ignorant.
Edmund, by listening to what
Edmund, by listening to what you've said, I assume you think that it's perfectly fine to experiment on a chimpanzee that's never done anything to a human being but it's cruel and unusual to conduct research on a murderous, human being. I don't understand how you can put that human above the chimp, ethically.
Doug, you make ascertions as
Doug, you make ascertions as to what I think based on your warped perceptions of reality. You are convinced you are right, that's your right, as is your right to embrace whatever opinions you choose, however you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
Our society does not condone medical experimintation on convicts, our laws prohibit the practice. If you want to explore this subject further I would suggest you take it up with a priest, minister, rabbi, mental health professional. They might be able to explain the why the idea of using convicts is morally and ethically abhorent in terms that even you might understand.