Ethics Of Prisoners

The ethical treatment of prisoners is a surprisingly contentious topic, considering how much is known about the conditions and contexts in which human beings function optimally, both physically and mentally. However, ethical discussions frequently have very little to do with what best allows human beings to thrive and function, but instead concern themselves with formulating rules and standards of acceptable behavior, usually out of the mistaken belief that these rules or standards represent some kind of objective, universal ethics. A problem arises when dealing with prisoners, because in many people's minds, the crime or offense of which a prisoner is accused warrants the denial of a certain subset of their rights, but there is not universal acceptance of which rights may be denied and to what extent, due to a disconnect between different modes of ethical thought. Believing in objective, universal ethical standards actually means that anything is justifiable; because these imagined objective standards do not actually exist, people are free to imagine them however they see fit. More utilitarian ethics rooted in conceptions of the social contract are far more useful for determining social policy, because they do not purport to represent objective ethical standards; rather, they acknowledge that ethics and morality are socially constructed, and as such they seek to rationally determine the best practices for achieving any particular goal. By examining two especially

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.

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

According to the federal regulations, which of the following studies meets the definition of research with human subjects?

Ethical dilemmas are one of the many sensitive issues that come with doing psychological research with human participants. As seen in several famous psychology studies such as the Stanford prison experiment, Milgram experiment, and Tuskegee experiment, ethics in psychological studies are important to protect both the individuals being subjected to research and the researcher. While these specific experiments did not include children, it does bring up an important conversation regarding ethics in research. There are several guidelines put in place by the American Psychological Association to protect humans during research. However, special considerations and guidelines are put into place when working with

There have been questions about the morals and ethics behind prisoner research for a long time. Laws were even made to restrict and prevent research on prisoners. An example of such laws is the Nuremburg code which was made because of inhumane research being conducted in concentration camps during WWII. Prisoners are now considered a vulnerable population and research is extremely restricted because of this. Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to participate in scientific research because they can be manipulated, it can be dangerous, and they aren't educated/smart enough to comprehend the tests being conducted.

I agree in the fact that we should have experiments in prisons but they should be voluntary experiments. Prisoners are human beings and should be treated as such. I do not side with Cohen’s opinion that the custodial institution should be able to force an inmate into an experiment. If the experiment is ethical and follows all of the guidelines A and B that Cohen has provided in his article I do not find a problem with inmates taking advantage to help themselves as well as the greater good by participating in a medical experiment. Every human being has the capability to make their own choices in life as long as they are mentally competent. Prison is seen as a controlled environment where many inmates are willing to participate in anything that is going to benefit them financially or get them one step closer to freedom. Prison life is strenuous and endless, having the opportunity to be apart of something that has benefits attached is big for an inmate. The factors of prison encourage the inmates to want to participate in something beneficial but in the end it is their sole decision to make in order to be included in proper

Ethics are a big part of research, in order for research to be conducted and the findings be used then they must follow ethics set by the Ethics committee. Ethics are a set of rules and rights. The rules must be followed by the researchers and the rights are for the participants. All participants must fully consent to the research and if they are too young then a guardian must consent for them. The participants’ information must be kept confidential and they can opt out of any parts of the research that they are uncomfortable completing.

Many incarcerated individuals make the choice to participate in research due to the need for health resources, desperation for effective treatment opportunities, or financial gain (Christopher, 2017). Enrolling an incarcerated individual into a research study to which may benefit them more than their current access to health resources, is beneficial to making a fair-minded decision about potential ethical violations in research (Charles et al., 2016). For example, if the participant has been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, and the conducted study would provide treatment to slow down the disease progression. This study is more beneficial to the individual’s overall health and well-being versus being denied critical treatment based on his or her incarceration and access. All participant should be made aware of the potential risk and benefit of each study prior to

The ethical theory of utilitarianism and the perspective on relativism, of prison labor along with the relativism on criminal behavior of individuals incarcerated are two issues that need to be addressed. Does the utilitarianism of prisoner’s right laws actually protect them? Or are the unethical actions of the international and states right laws exploiting the prison labor? Unethical procedures that impact incarcerated individuals and correctional staff, the relativism of respect as people and not just prisoner’s; the safety of all inmates and correctional staff, are all issues worth continuous reflection.

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

During world war 2, a disease named malaria was described as a second war against the united states army. According to (. bestpsychologydegrees.com”30-most-disturbing-human-experiments”). “Malaria was a fast-acting disease that comes from mosquitoes that lived in the pacific islands where World war 2 was taking place and for every three men killed in combat another five died because of these diseases”. With the circumstances of World War 2, Doctors were in desperate need of coming up with better treatments for this illness, thus turned to Prisons for medical human experimentation called the “Stateville Penitentiary Malaria Study”. After 29 years of study Primaquine was created. Utilitarian’s would find this type of study and research moral since their belief is that any action is right as long as its to promote a greater good. (Shafer-Landau, 123,124). Deontologists on the other hand say that they would never find the act of using someone as a means to an end or as a tool to achieve something as the right thing to do.(Shafer-Landau, 175,176).” By using someone as a means to an end destroys the individual’s decision and dignity”. I believe that being utilitarian and experimenting on people is okay as long as permission is asked by doctors or whomever may be doing thee experimenting, however most experiments involve lying to the test subjects or basically not letting them know what they are being experimented on. Therefor I will argue that it is not right to experiment on people and that deontologists have the right idea when it comes to how to treat people as people.

The Nuremberg Doctors Trial of 1946 is the preeminent case recognizing the importance of medical ethics and human rights specifically about human research subjects. The defendants in the trials include Nazi leadership, physicians, and investigators prosecuted for conducting unethical and inhumane medical experiments on civilians and prisoners of war resulting in extreme pain, suffering, permanent injury and often death. The Nuremberg Code, borne of these trials, establishes ethical guidelines for human experimentation to ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. Herein, this writer will first identify and discuss ethical dilemmas presented in the Nuremberg case followed by three

The art of medicine and curing diseases was not always approached in a scientific way. In fact, many advances occurred between 1919 to 1939, after technological advances allowed scientists to apply the scientific method to medical research. At this time, the ethics of using patients as test subjects either for new medicines or as samples for further testing were not considered. An extreme example of this was the Nazi’s using concentration camp inmates – including children – to run painful and invasive experiments. More modern examples are not so easy to identify as unethical, however. While amputating a leg to develop methods to deal with fractures and war wounds is obviously unethical, harvesting cells to develop a vaccine is not so clear cut, as the disadvantage to the patient is hard to identify. Coming from the various Nazi testing and especially the Nuremberg testing and trials, another code of ethics was developed, called the Nuremberg Code.

My research will be carried out on prisoners who are a vulnerable group of research participants, who over the years have been exploited by researchers. Prisoners are considered as the captive population. Accordingly, many ethical issues encircling research with prisoners stems from the complexity of the prison settings and the disempower status of prisoners. The first issue relates to inform consent, making sure that the environment allows the process of inform consent and refusal. The second issue relates to privacy; this can be challenging to ensure in a prison setting.