In the concentration camps of the Nazi Reich, hundreds of prisoners were tested on, in horrid medical experiments. The question of medical testing has been a heavily debated question since the start of our modern prison system. However, it seems quite obvious that even ignoring the blatant ethical issues at hand, prisoner testing is unviable at any large scale, due to the laws protecting prisoners as a vulnerable population. However, there is a point to be made about the relative cheapness of prisoners compared to other more commonly used test subjects. It would be possible to argue either way about prisoner testing, but in looking at the evidence the ethical and legal questions around prisoner testing provide a stronger base to argue from …show more content…
Ignoring specific examples (testing on prisoners specifically, instead of as an unbiased population), the work needed to revoke and change all the national and international laws shielding prisoners would be immense. Indeed, the Nuremberg Code alone could be a death blow, as ¨ẗhe voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” (Nuremberg). Depending on the level of experimentation, consent from prisoners could be practically impossible to gain, making the experimentation fly in the face of the accepted Nuremberg Code. While it is not law, there are laws that essentially say the same thing, just with the ability to enforce it with the judicial system. Even in the UK and EU, in order to allow the forced testing of prisoners in the UK we would have to withdraw from numerous UK and EU laws such as The Human Rights Act, 1998.” (Why Testing on Prisoners). Putting aside the ethical, the legality of prisoner testing (especially if that entails testing on the same level as on mice, chimpanzees, etc.) is in a grey area at best, and completely illegal at the …show more content…
Modern law reflects this idea: “certain forms of research with prisoners are permissible but often require review and approval from several agencies.” (oprs.usc). After decades of developing these laws, one would think that the laws reflect a careful, ethical way of testing on prisoners. In other words, prisoners should be better protected than the average person in medical testing, but that does not mean medical experimentation should be abolished for prisoners. Again, modern law carries this sentiment because “detention centers generally reserve the right to disallow a research activity from going forward at their facility.” (oprs.usc). Beyond a legal standpoint, there is also an argument to be made about the freedom and rights of prisoners. Should a prisoner not be allowed to participate in experiments (of course if complete consent is given). Prisoner experimentation, while it should be under harsher and more stringent regulations, should not be disallowed completely, for both the freedom and right of the prisoner and for large medical
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.
If I were the experimenter in charge, I would not have done this study. While the initial question posed in both cases is intriguing, (if given specific orders, would a person follow them when under normal circumstances they would not) it is not a humane experiment. All of the people in this study could have potential lasting emotional and/or physical scars that may never heal. For instance, when Prisoner 8612 “began suffering from an acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage” after only 36 hours into the experiment. How can
The Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment has to be one of the cruelest and disturbing experiments I have witnessed since the Milgram experiment. This experiment was pushed far beyond its means and went extremely too far. I know experiments in 1971 weren’t as thorough and strategic as today's but I know today's rules and regulations never allow cruel and unusual punish just to test out one’s theory’s. I don’t believe criminologists should be permitted to conduct replications of Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. I also know that the ACJS and other organizations who set the rules and guidelines for experiments would not promote or condone an experiment that is dangerous and is unethical such as Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. There were no boundaries or a level
Experiments were done on prisoners for many different reasons. They were done to push the Nazis agenda that the Aryan race is the dominant race, and that they should be the only race. This idea is also known as eugenics. Some experiments were done in attempt to find a way to multiply the Aryan race faster by performing experiments on twins. They wanted to make sure that Aryans were the only ones reproducing because they thought they were the dominate race. To enforce this, they did experiments that would insure this idea through sterilization for males and females. They were trying to find new medicines to cure different diseases and conditions for the Aryan race. They wanted to find a way to make the Aryan race stronger and healthier and a way to multiply their race more quickly, because they believed that they were the superior race.
World governments have frequently relied on unknowing participants and or prisoners of war for experimentation. While these experiments range vastly concerning procedures, outcomes, and justification, they all existed to outsmart international enemies efficiently. The government bioethics conspiracy I researched is Project MKUltra. This was a secretive CIA program that experimented with mind control, hallucinogenic drugs, and the behavioral engineering of humans from 1953 to 1973. Because the program existed for a couple decades, it encompassed a wide-range of experiments, types of patients, and immense secrecy. More often than not, test subjects were not aware of tests to be conducted and thought they were participating in standard medical tests at first. Despite the program coming to a halt, many believe human experimentation is still ongoing and don’t see a future without secret government research.
The prisoners were emotionally and mentally harmed during the experiment. The prisoners started to lose their identity, and instead started identifying themselves as their number. One participant even went on a hunger strike for the time that he was in the prison. Another participant had to leave the study because he became excessively disturbed as time went on. After the study was done, people had trouble separating what the people did in the study to how they were in real life, which caused a problem when they all had to meet after the trial was over. This ethical violation is very apparent because Dr. Zimbardo did have to end the study before the two weeks was done.
The Stanford prison experiment was unique because they wanted to watch and learn the behaviors of a prisoner and a prison guard, observing the effects they found some pretty disturbing things among the students. Dr. Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University stayed true to what they believed, and they did what they felt they needed to do to find a set of results for their simulation. Unfortunately they where swallowed into the experiment, when they became the roles, just as the students where. So from their point of view I want to say that what they where doing was ethical, and being that the prison experiment was stopped before its half way mark showed that they realized that it was time to call it quits. Dr. Zimbardo noticed
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
Ethics in Experiments: The Stanford Prison Experiment Lyndsey Brady Brigham Young University I chose to read and research more about the Stanford Prison Experiment that was headed by Philip Zimbardo. He conducted this experiment as a way to “demonstrate the power of social situations to distort personal identities and long cherished values and morality as students internalized situated identities in their roles as prisoners and guards” (Zimbardo, Research, 2004). On one of his websites, prisonexp.org, Dr. Zimbardo explains that he gained his sample from placing “a local newspaper ad calling for volunteers in a study of the psychological effects of prison life.” He continues to explain that after receiving about 70 applicants
The Stanford Prison Experiment in my opinion violated the ethical code. For instance, the psychologist Dr. Zimbardo did not have a clear pathway on what to expect when administering this research experiment. Also, when the participants’ were arrested from their home, it came as an unexpected surprise. The element of surprise was not within the contract signed by the participants, but rather a last minute call. When the prototype prison was complete and the experiment began the main objective was to view how the human subjects would conform to the roles of prisoners, guards, and prison life.
Before the 1970s, drug research was conducted amongst prisoners. However, it was made illegal due to evidence of abuse and neglect. The National Institutes of Medicine wants to start drug experimentation on prisoners again under the circumstances that the test subjects are volunteers and understand the effects of the tested drug. Conversely, there is the concern that coercion prevents it from being voluntary. This is based upon the fact that prisoners are already disadvantaged and subjected to abuse. Therefore, I will argue in against of the National Institutes of Medicine and discuss how these benefits will better society as a whole.
US Public Health Service Policy (45 CFR 46 raised to regulatory status the US Public Health Service policy of 1966 "Clinical research and investigation involving human beings".)
Although prisoners give consent, I don’t believe many are voluntarily giving consent, but are being forced to or being persuaded into giving consent since they have free time and require little compensation (Nelson Merz, 69). I do not believe it is right to make a prisoner do something he does not want to do just because there is a subject needed for research. Also, prisoners may give consent to have a little freedom from their everyday environment. “Special concerns arose in the aftermath of Nazi medical experiments during World War II, which resulted in the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki” (Raab). The Nuremburg Code was brought upon to protect the prisoner subjects from harm and to give them protection from being forced to consent in research. It also protects prisoners from being a population that is turned to for experimental subjects in research. The poor population will easily give consent to a research experiment because they will easily get money due to their voluntary role in the experiment. Although the money compensation sounds great to the unfortunate populations, there is no concern, other than money, or thought put into the overall experiment outcomes. They participate in the research, but do not take into consideration the down side effect it may cause. During a research, there are many people who did not know that giving consent to a research also meant that
Over 100 million animals get burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in United States labs every year. Animal experimentation or commonly known as animal testing, is where scientists test their chemicals and products on animals to make sure it is safe for human use. Animal testing should be used because it's not only harming the animals it's costing a lot of money and animal lives.Animal testing should not be used because it harms the animals. Some tests involve killing pregnant animals to test on their fetuses. ¨Many of the tests performed on animals in the name of science, opponents maintain, are downright barbaric, rendering their subjects damaged and disfigured.¨ (Animal testing: Is animal testing morally justified?)With the amount of tests being performed
In addition to the fact that animal experimentation is ineffective, unreliable, and costly, testing on animals also violates animal rights. Do we think that just because we are superior to animals that we have the right to subject these innocent creatures to cruel and painful experiments? The superiority humans feel over animals may be the reason why humans feel less troubled by inflicting pain on animals. Or perhaps humans justify this cruel act by saying that animals would not be used in experiments if their use was not absolutely necessary. The pain and misery these animals are put through is absolutely unjustified, especially since the experiments they are subject to are proven to be unnecessary and even pointless. As Ingrid Newkirk states, animals in the laboratories are "under constant stress from fear, the loss of control over their lives, and the denial of all