What is wrong with scientific research involving human subjects?

I think we need to be more moral and ethically responsible when conducting scientific experiments and research on human beings.

 

While surfing the web the other day, I read an article on a personal blog that said, “Can we use people in prison (prisoners) to conduct human experiments?” It was a proposal to conduct experiments on people who had been sentenced to death in a court of law and were about to die, rather than just dying, for the sake of social welfare and scientific advancement, and it was argued that people who had been sentenced to death, especially serial killers and other so-called bad criminals who had caused great social problems, could be experimented on regardless of their consent.
Although the idea seems a bit extreme, I could partially sympathize with him as he tried to make a plausible argument with his own logic. However, even if a person is a vicious criminal who has made a huge impact on society, should the government and society disregard his human rights and conduct experiments on him? My conclusion to this question is: No. Human experimentation is a no-no.
Of course, if experiments on humans don’t cause any problems with the health of the test subjects (people), then there is no problem. However, given that the path of science throughout human history has not always left a trail of righteousness, I will base my argument on the premise that there is a good chance that experiments will adversely affect the health of human subjects.
First, I believe that such an argument is flawed from its basic premise. The basic principle of the argument is as follows The argument is based on a self-reinforcing, or karmic, premise that because bad actors have violated the human rights of others, we should not have to protect their human rights. This principle of reaping what you sow causes many problems. For example, if someone breaks my leg in an accident, it doesn’t mean I can break the perpetrator’s leg. Similarly, a bad guy, regardless of his past behavior, shouldn’t have to be an unwilling guinea pig in the present.
Furthermore, the person who broke my leg doesn’t deserve to have his leg broken, but he should find some other appropriate way to compensate me for the harm he caused. Similarly, a vicious criminal has been punished by law for the crime he committed, which is the death penalty. So there is no reason for him to be subjected to human experimentation.
Some might argue that it’s not right that a violent criminal’s crimes are simply covered by a death sentence or life imprisonment. They would argue that experimentation on prisoners is necessary and justified for the good of society as a whole. But if you think about it a bit more, it’s easy to find reasons why this idea shouldn’t and can’t be realized.
Second, when trying to realize such an idea, it is difficult to realize it because the definition of a vicious criminal is vague. There are different kinds of crimes, and different kinds of crimes are punished according to the law. However, measuring the severity of a crime is not the same as measuring the type of crime, and there is no clear standard for that. When comparing the difference between a person who steals a small amount of money and a person who steals a large amount of money, or the difference between a person who kills a small number of people and a person who kills a large number of people, we cannot approach it objectively without subjectivity. Since we cannot define a bad criminal who has caused great social harm, it is not possible to conduct human experiments with only bad criminals.
Third, the argument in favor of experimentation on violent criminals is a misplaced prioritization of values. It argues that the welfare and benefit of society as a whole makes it okay to experiment. But the dignity of the human person and of life must be prioritized above all else. Even if something is done for the welfare and benefit of society as a whole, if it is done in a way that ignores moral values such as the dignity of life, it will ultimately be detrimental to the welfare and benefit of society as a whole.
Another controversial issue is research involving children. I have a negative opinion on this issue as well. The first issue is how to balance the need to protect children from exploitation with the need for experimentation to advance scientific research. Research involving children is problematic because children do not have the same decision-making capacity as adults, so it is difficult to obtain their consent, which must be obtained from their parents or other guardians, which does not reflect their wishes.
Second, while therapeutic research is justified as being in the best interest of children’s health, non-therapeutic research is controversial because of the potential for risks rather than benefits. While non-therapeutic research is necessary to help the health and well-being of children in society as a whole, it is problematic in terms of protecting the human rights of the children being studied.
Third, if the research involves children in institutionalized care, their human rights are likely to be violated. Institutionalized children need to be protected, but they are often used for the convenience of experimentation and medical efficiency, and this idea of expediency is problematic.
To summarize, the idea of experimenting on violent criminals is based on a flawed basic premise, the vague criteria for realizing that idea are problematic, and there is a misplaced prioritization of values in the argument. In addition, I believe that research involving children is not possible because it is difficult to reflect their will and their human rights are easily violated.
We agree and recognize that human subjects research is necessary for human welfare and the advancement of science. What is important is that the subjects of such research are determined according to reasonable procedures and methods that are acceptable to all, and should not be prisoners or children who are not in a position to advance in society. We need to be more moral and ethically responsible in conducting scientific experiments and research.