NationStates Jolt Archive

As part of the Model UN in my school one of the topics is "medical Experimentation on Prisoners". I had never really heard about this as an issue because of the strong stance taken against it in the Geneva Convention as well as other international bodies, however, there are some benefits to it, especially if it is done properly, (i.e. uncoerced concent, and non-life threatening tests). Human Beings are undoubtedly the best platform for testing new medical procedures and medications, and the results of this could benefit many people in society, but is it worth it at the expense of the civil rights of the prisoners if they are harmed or their rights violated in any way?

On a side note, does annyone know anything about russia's stance on this issue?

The general rule of thumb is "If you were in that situation, would you want people to have the right to do that to YOU?"

Nazis did that, rightt?

I don't think it's a good idea...
even if we exclude the wrongfully accused.

While i don't support it, at least yet, i do see the point of the people who do. This is a copy of an exerpt from the Model UN handbook at my highschool:

If treatments for currently incurable medical conditions are to be found, if new and better treatments are to be devised, or if current treatments are to be made more effective, humanity’s understanding of medicine must advance. This is the basic fact which underlies all medical research. If we as a species wish to enhance our ability to fight the ravages of injury and disease, we must increase our knowledge, and the only way to do that is through experimentation. This, of course, requires people upon whom to experiment1. One group which is often used is prisoners.
Since the 1947 Nuremberg Code, which is still considered the major standard by which such things are measured, there have been several efforts to ensure the ethical standards of medical experimentation. Chief among them the Declaration of Helsinki (1964), the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences Guidelines for Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studies (1991), the World Medical Association International Code of Medical Ethics, the World Medical Association Principles for Those in Research and Experimentation (1954), and the American Medical Association Revision of Code of Medical Ethics (1957). Most of these have been revised and updated over the years, but the basic principles which are relevant to this particular debate may be summed up as follows:

1. Any potential subject must give consent, usually in written form. The Nuremberg Code states that “this means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion”.

2. Any potential subject of an experiment must be informed of possible dangers inherent in that experiment.

3. An experimental subject may end his involvement in the experiment at any point.

4. The subject must be considered a patient under the medical care of the experimenter, with all the obligations that this entails.

Experimentation on prisoners is problematic with regards to these rquirements, particularly (1) and (3). Prisoners, by definition, have limited autonomy and thus limited ability to consent. In many nations, prisoners have no effective ability to refuse any demands made upon them by their jailors. It is not reasonable to expect a prisoner in a nation which actively uses torture in its prisons to be able to simply say “no” when asked to take part in an experiment, or for such a refusal to be honoured. In others, where incentives such as reduced sentences are offered as comensation, refusal effectively means a longer prison sentence. This leaves aside entirely the problem of people being “volunteered” without consultation or consent, as has been known to happen even in the North America and Europe2.

Some of the advantages of prisoner experimentation:

Prisoners live controlled and limited lives, which reduces the number of lifestyle factors a researcher must take into account when analyzing data.
Prisoners are essentialy stationary, which makes them very easy to observe, whereas an outside volunteer might have a job or obligations which require him to be out of observation for extended periods of time.
Prisoners are a group large enough to include almost any disease or condition to be studied, and to include a societal cross-section of body types.
Prisoners are less likely to object to bad treatment than outside volunteers, and are conditioned to obey those in authority over them.
Tangible incentives such as shortened sentences are both attactive to prisoners and fairly to offer.

Some of the drawbacks:
The questionable ethics involved, specifically the inability of many prisoners to withold consent.
The prisoner lifestyle, especially in countries where they are badly treated, may be vastly different from that of the general public, which may impact on the results. This includes factors such as exercise, diet, exposure to allergens, exposure to sunlight, smoking, alcohol consumption.
The pre-prison lifestyle of prisoners may be markedly different from that of the general public, particularly because many prisons have an overrepresentation of certain socioeconomic groups, specifically those with low income, low eduction, and high prevalence of substance abuse, as well as minorities.
Some of the political stances involved:

Some nations consider prisoners to be essentially expendable, and use them for experimentation.
Some nations see the common good as outweighing the rights of prisoners. An example of this would be China.
Some nations, particularly in the West, see personal autonomy, even among prisoners, as overriding any scientific or general good which would result from non-consensual testing.
Questions to consider:

1. Should prisoners be offered incentives such as better living conditions or reduced sentences in exchange for participation?

2. How do the need for consent and the public good balance each other?

3. How would any agreement affect issues of national sovereignty, specifically with regards to justice and penal systems and national research establishments?

4. How does your country view prisoner’s rights? The need to pursue “the common good” even at the expense of the individual?

5. What is the role of business, specifically pharmeceutical, interests in medical testing, and what issues need to be addressed with regards to that involvement? An example of this is that some less developed countries with severe needs for affordable medication might offer a more free hand to such testing in return for concessions.

Reference links

Codes of Medical and Human Experimentation Ethics

(Links to most of the codes mentioned here) Nuremberg Code (full text)

Online Ethics Center: Responsible Research <> Senate Hearings: MK-ULTRA Mind Control Experiments

1 Experimentation in this context may be taken to mean drug effectiveness and human endurance testing, as well as any invasive procedure whose purpose is primarily to gain knowledge, either in addition to, or instead of, helping the subject. 2 One specific case is that of the CIA’s MK-ULTRA mind control experimentation. It does not involve prisoners, but the issues involved are similar

The general rule of thumb is "If you were in that situation, would you want people to have the right to do that to YOU?"
If it were a case of "uncoerced consent" as the original post said, then no I wouldn't mind. I just wouldn't give my consent.
And is this:
On a side note, does annyone know anything about russia's stance on this issue?
in any way taken from the X-Files?

If consent is allowed, then being a prisoner is unrelated unless we're talking a reward for it.

Bums on the street should be just as able to walk up to a clinic and say, "Hey, you in there, make me a lab rat! Squeak! Squeak dammit!"

Nazis did that, rightt?

I don't think it's a good idea...
even if we exclude the wrongfully accused.

Nazis and the Japanese in WW2 were most famous for it, but the US did at least one study on it's own (black) troops.

Nazis and the Japanese in WW2 were most famous for it, but the US did at least one study on it's own (black) troops.



Didn't know that... What did they test?

If consent is allowed, then being a prisoner is unrelated unless we're talking a reward for it.

Bums on the street should be just as able to walk up to a clinic and say, "Hey, you in there, make me a lab rat! Squeak! Squeak dammit!"
I sense a classic Ren & Stimpy fan...(the only reason I quoted you, the rest is to the prompt)

You can judge a society by the way it treats the least of it's citizens. Coercion is not a one-way, one type thing. Prisoners have the least amount of freedoms and offering them anything in addition to be lab rats falls into that catagory. If it is truly 'safe' for human testing then it can be done with volunteers in the general populace. Using prisoners is too close to abuse to make it something a country can do in good conscience.

No that wasn't an X-Files reference, I am the "delegate" to russia, and i was wondering if someone know so i wouldnt have to research it.

Anyway, Bums are different from prisinors in many ways, which is highlited in the article. i was too lazy to find the pertinent parts when i posted the quote, which I personally think is interesting, but I will do it now, here:
-------
1. Any potential subject must give consent, usually in written form. The Nuremberg Code states that “this means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion”.

2. Any potential subject of an experiment must be informed of possible dangers inherent in that experiment.

3. An experimental subject may end his involvement in the experiment at any point.

4. The subject must be considered a patient under the medical care of the experimenter, with all the obligations that this entails.
Some of the advantages of prisoner experimentation:


Some of the drawbacks:
The questionable ethics involved, specifically the inability of many prisoners to withold consent.
The prisoner lifestyle, especially in countries where they are badly treated, may be vastly different from that of the general public, which may impact on the results. This includes factors such as exercise, diet, exposure to allergens, exposure to sunlight, smoking, alcohol consumption.
The pre-prison lifestyle of prisoners may be markedly different from that of the general public, particularly because many prisons have an overrepresentation of certain socioeconomic groups, specifically those with low income, low eduction, and high prevalence of substance abuse, as well as minorities.
-----
The problem for many prisinors is that it is very hard for them to withhold consent. A bum may need the money, but his life would be relatively unchanged if he did not. However, in many prison enviroments, agreeing to medical testing means a reduced sentence, so by refusing he is effectively extending his sentence. or in other countries refusal could directly result in torture.
however ther are advantages:


Prisoners live controlled and limited lives, which reduces the number of lifestyle factors a researcher must take into account when analyzing data.
Prisoners are essentialy stationary, which makes them very easy to observe, whereas an outside volunteer might have a job or obligations which require him to be out of observation for extended periods of time.
Prisoners are a group large enough to include almost any disease or condition to be studied, and to include a societal cross-section of body types.
Prisoners are less likely to object to bad treatment than outside volunteers, and are conditioned to obey those in authority over them.
Tangible incentives such as shortened sentences are both attactive to prisoners and fairly to offer.

1) Not huge on R&S. Some of its funny, some of its not. But I did grow up with it being on TV, so, eh. Osmosis.

2) Torture is a fairly obvious no-no. And I would not advocate letting them out earlier. Just give them candy bars or something. In prison, munchies are worth a great deal.

Didn't know that... What did they test?

In the 1950s, U.S. researchers conducted medical tests on American prisoners that were likened by critics to Nazi experiments. Inmates were injected with herpes, hepatitis and syphilis. Some had their testicles radiated; others were inflicted with wounds to see how they healed.

http://ww2.aegis.com/news/ap/1999/AP991007.html

I'm happy to debate this issue, but in a few days, im going to canada for a model UN meeting, and i dont know what russia's opinion is about this, does anyone know?

In the 1950s, U.S. researchers conducted medical tests on American prisoners that were likened by critics to Nazi experiments. Inmates were injected with herpes, hepatitis and syphilis. Some had their testicles radiated; others were inflicted with wounds to see how they healed.

http://ww2.aegis.com/news/ap/1999/AP991007.html


That's just sick! same goes for Nazis and japanese in WWII
progress by any means necessary it seems :(