Discussion topic from momentai, Redux

[wolven7]

So the topic was apparently supposed to be "discuss human subjects in scientific experiements and if ethics is always something that pertains," which makes the question under consideration quite a bit different. When we're dealing with the possibilities of discovery which can only be made via experimentation on human beings, must we always consider the ethics of the actions at hand, or can we put those particular concerns off in the interest of discoveries which may advance or save the human race, from itself?

Even though the question is different, the answer remains the same: Yes. We consider the ethical ramifications. We do this because, if we don't, we will fall into the trap of ceasing to consider the implications and consequences of our actions. We will seek "advancement," for its own sake, and at the cost of our sanity and guiding principles, creating nightmare worlds simply because we have the ability to do so. We must consider the consequences of our actions, the ethical implications of using one another to further our understanding, even if we eventually do go ahead with them, the fact that we stop and consider the human cost means that we will not undertake these processes lightly. We must move forward with information, understanding, and mutual consent.

Consider the American scientists at Tuskeegee, and the Nazis and Japanese, during WWII. They perpetrate scientific experiementation on the subjects of their internment camps for the sake of so-callled progress, and progress they do attain, but the problem is that people are tortured, murdered, defaced, and outright harmed, because of it, with no say in the matter. In our time, we have seen that people will volunteer for scientific trials, when given all the facts about what may happen to them, and what the personal price of collective scientific advancement may be. If you give people the information and the choice, many will step up to the cause, with full knowledge. The ethical quandry is, then, easily solved.

Because the ethical quandry, itself, is the using of people, the testing of things on people, without their knowledge or consent. This is the point of outrage, any time something like this comes to public light. We solve this by informing people, gathering together those who want Science Done To Them-- there are many of us-- and Doing Science To Them. Test, try, trial, all of it, with informed consent and unmediated expectation, and there will be no one to be outraged. Well. Not no one, but no one sane. Some people just want to be morally outraged, and will take whatever outlet they can find, even if it's the handling of someone else's personhood, by that person (no fetal or embryonic complications, at this time). But sane people, people who see that someone has to test these things, has to find the limits of the majority of the configurations of the human form, and expand them, work through them, find new ground to become, will accept it as long as those on whom the tests are performed are aware of what they're getting into, and of what they're experiencing, as they experience it.

Do this, and ethics will pertain, and be sated.

Comments

[momentai.livejournal.com]

What about in cases where there is no danger of physical harm and there is no malicious intent? In certain sociological and psychological research, it undermines the point of the experiments if the participants know what is going on. To be concise, some argue that scientists shouldn;t be so mean and are putting people's mental health at risk by experimenting with them without informed consent while the scientists say it is for a greater good and there is only trivial danger, if any, of adverse and long term mental damage.

IS it ok to agree with scientists then cos it is not such a big deal as long as the information gained is useful to many?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I was hoping you'd bring up psychological and sociological double-blinds, as I was having trouble working them into the body of the post. There is the ability to discuss, broadly, the potentially dangerous side-effects of the experiments, without compromising the testing. There is also no way to gauge how effects will display, prior to the actual outcome, meaning that what might be "trivial," to some, would be "lasting and major," to others.

This is why we present the range of known potential side-effects, and outcomes, while acknowledging that we simply Don't Know everything that may happen. The mental trauma may be more easily overcome, if the patient knows the danger of it, beforehand.

I'll always side with "Knowledge of/That There Are Potential Dangers," over ignorance.

[renatus.livejournal.com]

This reminds of something Agnes Nitt, one of the witches in Terry Pratchett's Discworld, says in Carpe Jugulum--that evil begins when you start treating people as things.

Forced experimentation/experimentation without informed consent is treating people as things.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Completely agreed