This article examines the need for and justification of human experimentation on death row inmates and violent criminals, and discusses the negative consequences of such experiments, focusing on human rights violations and ethical issues.
While surfing the web the other day, I came across a personal blog that asked, “Can we use people in prison to perform human experiments?” It was a proposal to conduct experiments on people who have been sentenced to death in a court of law and are about to die, to advance social welfare and science rather than just dying, and it was argued that people who have been sentenced to death, especially serial killers and other so-called vicious criminals who have caused great social problems, could be experimented on with or without their consent.
Although his idea seems a bit extreme, I partially sympathized 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-fulfilling prophecy, or a cause-and-effect 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, I don’t think a bad guy should have to be an unwilling guinea pig in the present, regardless of his past behavior.
Furthermore, the person who broke my leg did not deserve to break it, but should find some other appropriate way to compensate me for the harm he caused. Similarly, a bad criminal has been punished by law for the crime he committed, which is the death penalty, so he has no reason to be a human test subject.
Some might argue that it’s not right that the crimes of a violent criminal are simply covered by a death sentence or life imprisonment. They would argue that the good of society as a whole justifies the need to experiment on prisoners. 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 criteria for defining 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. When comparing the difference between someone who steals a small amount of money and someone who steals a large amount of money, or someone who kills a small number of people and someone who kills a large number of people, there is no objective approach without subjectivity. Since we cannot precisely define a bad criminal who has caused great social harm, it is impossible to conduct human experiments with only bad criminals.
Third, the argument in favor of experimentation on violent criminals is a misplaced prioritization of values. The argument argues that it is okay to experiment when considering the welfare and interests of society as a whole. But the dignity of human beings and human life is a value that should be prioritized above all else. Even if something is done for the welfare and benefit of society as a whole, if it ignores moral values such as the dignity of human life, it will end up harming 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 decision-making capacity of 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 for the benefit of children’s health, non-therapeutic research is controversial because of the potential risks that outweigh the 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, human rights are more likely to be violated when the research involves children in institutionalized settings. Institutionalized children need to be more 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 built on a flawed basic premise, the standards for realizing that idea are problematic, and there is a misplaced prioritization of values in the argument. I also believe that research involving children is not feasible because it is difficult to reflect their will and their human rights are easily violated.
We agree and recognize that research involving human subjects is necessary for human welfare and the advancement of science. Importantly, the subjects of such research should be determined according to reasonable procedures and methods that are acceptable to all, and should not include 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.
