Pharmaceutical Testing On Prisoners

[salamangkero 0]

While I would have loved to post this in the "My Ideas, Theories, Possibilities, Innovations" section but I'm well aware that what may be obvious and logical to me may not be so apparent to others.My idea is already concisely presented in the title but, for the sake of further information, allow me to describe the situation which had led to the formulation of such a notion.In our country, the crime rate is rather moderately high and our prisons are quite full. A cell which includes two bunk beds would be made capable of holding up to fifteen persons. In some jails, there do exist a rather gentlemanly system where older prisoners, on account of their age and frailty, would get the best possible accommodations. On the other hand, there also exist systems where the strongest rule from a rather comfortable metaphorical throne, at least, as comfy as anyone in prison could afford. Meanwhile, all around them, overcrowding remains a problem. Lack of water and hygienic supplies like soap, shampoo and toothpaste introduce several dermatological and dental problems like boils, scabs, measles outbreaks and a host of other diseases and illnesses, prison brawls and rape notwithstanding.Now I just figured that, perhaps, it might be worthwhile to do testing using human subjects. I mean, AFTER testing has been done on other animals, and that, methinks, is a whole new issue that, at the moment, I have to beg you to ignore it and just stay focused on the primary question: should prisoners be subject to pharmaceutical testing?They could probably use the chance that it works. I mean, almost any health care they'd receive from drug companies would undoubtedly be much better than the conditions they are enduring right now. Perhaps a system could be instituted that those who undergo or participate in such testing might have more comfortable accommodations, or maybe have some years lopped off their sentences.Although, I would be first to admit, this has been mostly idle and speculative thinking; this idea has not been fully-thought out and while it feels like a good one, perhaps others might offer much more concrete and convincing opinions than what my addled brain had laid out before you, whether supporting or contradicting the original idea.What do you guys think?

[sonesay 7]

I like the idea but I think it should be up to them whether they are subject to testing or not. Even though they are prisoners they are still human and their rights should not be taken away. We should not be forcing anything on anyone and the day we start doing that is the day we begin losing our freedom (if we even had it to begin with). This world is already messed up as it is (probably has always been) and the only way to make things better is to educate more people so they aren't just sheep being manipulated and used by the elites but be able to think and speak out on their own.

Edited January 24, 2011 by sonesay (see edit history)

[contactskn 2]

Dear friend committing a crime may be due to the mental state of a fraction of second some times and just due to this fact what I think is one should not be treated as if he or she is not a human. If they are willing to go for the same or ready for the test then its ok other wise forcefully I don?t think such ideas should be implemented.

[Iniyila 2]

that is not a bad idea but i think the choice should be with them too just like "sonesay" said. i was thinking that in these days most modern contries are trying ti choose their testing subjects from other countries, so they do not even thinking about choosing their testing subjects from their prisoners which is a great idea. they are testing their products (anything not only related to health care) on people of poor countries, this is a way better than testing it on their peoples even if they are in prison. They test many particular things on their prisoners and they are mostly related to mental care because they are trying to know what makes a person to do a crime or how we can educate peoples to decrease crimes, this is what they test on their prisoners and they never test any drug or something like this on them. i think this is the correct way by testing and learning criminals behaviors and studying on them and changing their environment to see if their behavior changes or not and if we want to test a drug or even a product, then we should go for other countries prisons first not our one. This is how a government can respect its peoples, and this is what they are doing in modern countries (when i say modern countries don't think of united states because there is something else going on because they have many people from different countries in each state which makes thing a little different, think of europian countries like England or Germany).So in total i agree with doing some tests on volunteer prisoners but i think its better for testing something that are not going to damage them physically or mentally and you know if something is completely perfect then why it needs a testing ? so when they test a drug on a person, they are thinking of its side effects more than its effectiveness in curing so i do not recommend testing a drug on one of my compatriots. i can see many peoples in the jails because of car accidents which has cause to some people deaths and can not pay the compensation, so how we can test something on a person that is in jail because of a car accident ? all of persons that are in prisons are not killers so you should not think of they deserving to be subjects of some factories drugs.

[nirvaman 1]

I don't like the idea , i even don't like the idea of testing drogs on animals , it's not because i'm veterinarian , but it's a principle , so conducting pharmaceutical testing on prisonners will not fix the problem! because one day they "prisonners" will do their time and go outside and then they will be sick because of the medecine and we will be obliged to treat them.Another idea ,is to test pesticide and poisons on people convicted of murder , and serial killer , so instead of using gas chamber "gas is expensive those days" , we can test those products on them till they die

[deadmad7 4]

I guess my conscious will allow it if they have choice... and if they do have choice, i bet 90% of them will do it. They are stuck in prison... and they have a chance to make $$MONEY$$. Why wouldn't they do it? (unless they are on death row or life in prison lol). It's better than the money you get in prison for doing work... its like $25 cents or something for a day... really really low. Besides, testing medicine isn't half bad.. its better than getting stabbed in prison .

[sheepdog 10]

WHAT!!!! Test on animals before using it on human prisoners???? Oh, we can't have that! We can't make those poor little animals suffer just to make things better for humans now can we? That would just be awful.( I do hope ya'll recognise sarcasim when you see it! )If they are going to test drugs they should do it on lawyers. Maybe politicians. If a drug screws up a politician, what does it matter the tax payers have to support them for the rest of their lives anyway. As for prisoners, if they volunteer, fine.

[anwiii 17]

well first of all, you guys have a high crime rate because the average person's income per day equals the price of a happy meal. so if you want to enjoy a steak or something, you're gonna have to rob someone. i am against reducing sentences if people agree to testing on themselves. they did a crime and they have to pay for that crime. i am not against testing on humans IF humans agree to testing. what i do think that should happen if they ever implement testing on humans in prison or jail is that they should be allowed extra amenities including their own cells. they should also be paid if they are willing to sacrifice themselves.personally, i have nothing against testing on humans as long as it's agreed upon and as long as there are no lies involved to scam someone in to agreeing to be tested. but this is the problem. people WILL lie and people WILL scam. testing is a huge money maker where compaines even recieve grants from the government or other private institutions. it's a business. have you ever heard of a business not lie to make an extra buck? or hide the truth just to stay in business?we can talk about politicians and lawyers all day, but they don't represent big businesses who directly influences economy. these same businesses who will do whatever it takes to STAY in business.on the other hand, i know here in the united states, prisoners lose most of their rights. we have the same conditions in the philipines in some cities and towns where there is so much over crowding, prisoners are required to sleep on the floor unless they know how to do that standing up. in some places, it got so bad, they moved prisoners to the rooftops because the inside of the jail was too crowded.we also have laws here that it is against the law to attempt suicide or harm ones self. i think testing on humans would be a conflict on those laws. but i am still in favor of it as long as the prisoner agrees and there is no deception. after all, they wouldn't be productive otherwise.the only problem i see with testing on humans is that if the tests go wrong, other people would be responsible for their medical. are they willing to be responsible for proper medical attention that can get in to the billions of dollars if testing on humans became legal? i mean, we don't care about the rats or even the cute bunnies named "fluffy". or those innocent puppies that don't even know their about to be tortured. i know you eat dog in the Philippines but that is beside the point.

[sheepdog 10]

it's not because i'm veterinarian , but it's a principle

Hey, are you actually a veterinarian? Or did you mean vegatarian????
I've been hoping for some dog breeders to join up here at KnowledgeSurta, but hey, a vet would be great!!!

[salamangkero 0]

Please be forewarned, the general tone of this reaction post is a bit negative.

Dear friend committing a crime may be due to the mental state of a fraction of second some times and just due to this fact what I think is one should not be treated as if he or she is not a human.

Dear friend, nowhere did I say that anyone should not be treated as a human.

they are testing their products (anything not only related to health care) on people of poor countries, this is a way better than testing it on their peoples even if they are in prison.

I beg to differ. These drugs should help alleviate a patient's condition and, in that respect, everyone has the right to it. However, when the aforementioned drugs also carry a risk of side-effects, I should think prisoners are more deserving of this chance. I don't think being poor ever makes anyone more deserving of an adverse medical reaction.

if we want to test a drug or even a product, then we should go for other countries prisons first not our one. This is how a government can respect its peoples, and this is what they are doing in modern countries (when i say modern countries don't think of united states because there is something else going on because they have many people from different countries in each state which makes thing a little different, think of europian countries like England or Germany).

This is something I would also beg to differ on. In my point of view, human rights should be applied equally. Why should you test on prisoners of someone else's countries when you have prisoners available in your own? When you talk of how a government respects its own people, should that entail disrespecting everyone else?

if something is completely perfect then why it needs a testing ? so when they test a drug on a person, they are thinking of its side effects more than its effectiveness in curing so i do not recommend testing a drug on one of my compatriots. i can see many peoples in the jails because of car accidents which has cause to some people deaths and can not pay the compensation, so how we can test something on a person that is in jail because of a car accident ? all of persons that are in prisons are not killers so you should not think of they deserving to be subjects of some factories drugs.

No drug is "perfect", heck, even paracetamol can have side effects. I think the question is rather meaningless, after all, that IS the point of testing: finding out whether a drug has other side effects that have not been observed from animal testing. And I think it's pretty racist to say something along the lines of "I think <<procedure>> is dangerous so I will not recommend it to my countrymen but it's okay if they do it to other countries" Really, I'm sorry if anyone gets offended but I think that's a pretty backward manner of thinking.

I don't like the idea , i even don't like the idea of testing drogs on animals , it's not because i'm veterinarian , but it's a principle , so conducting pharmaceutical testing on prisonners will not fix the problem! because one day they "prisonners" will do their time and go outside and then they will be sick because of the medecine and we will be obliged to treat them.

Thank you for your insight; I'm pretty sure you would make an impeccable forecaster or fortuneteller. For the life of me, I have no idea how you are absolutely sure that any prisoner testing a drug WILL get sick. I am amazed at how you perceived that there is absolutely no chance that the drug will work with no or minimal adverse effects. And even when I said pharmaceutical testing on animals is a completely different issue altogether, I really do appreciate that you still persisted in bringing it up.

Another idea ,is to test pesticide and poisons on people convicted of murder, and serial killer, so instead of using gas chamber "gas is expensive those days", we can test those products on them till they die

Yeah... well, you see, my idea was trying to save lives while yours was focused on inflicting unnecessary pain and prolonging the agony of the process of dying. Thanks for the notion, though.

well first of all, you guys have a high crime rate because the average person's income per day equals the price of a happy meal. so if you want to enjoy a steak or something, you're gonna have to rob someone.

Thank you for keeping an open mind. I'm quite positive we have very few murderers, arsonists, prostitutes, rapists, drug lords and terrorists here. Yeah... the criminal underground here is a thieving guild like that... yeah...

i am against reducing sentences if people agree to testing on themselves. they did a crime and they have to pay for that crime. i am not against testing on humans IF humans agree to testing. what i do think that should happen if they ever implement testing on humans in prison or jail is that they should be allowed extra amenities including their own cells. they should also be paid if they are willing to sacrifice themselves.

You raised a good point and I agree. I must admit, I have never thought of it in that respect. I do suppose reducing their sentence is rather unfair to their victims. (Sorry, just for this line, I do genuinely agree with the quoted text; I'm not being sarcastic)

i know you eat dog in the Philippines but that is beside the point.

Yes, I know it's beside the point too, which makes me wonder why it was brought up in the first place.