If the aliens were having a debate and some started to argue that if these medical experiments are so necessary for their species, then it should get volunteers from among themselves rather than harvest humans. Whose side would human philosophers (or Pickled Politics bloggers) be on?

I object to Sunny’s proposal of a market in human subjects but I would prefer my hypothetical aliens to find some way among themselves not to make an industry out of torturing humans. It would be very sad If they couldn’t use their hyperintelligence to create a society that can survive without torturing some species or another to increase their medical knowledge.

The case for legalising human testing is based on the premise that humans get turned into lab rats, that then become nothing more than commodities.

You find that abhorrent and morally wrong because in your head it smacks of: “but you’re not treating these people like people. You’ve taken away their pride and made into guinea pigs at the mercy of the lab assistant.”

Exactly. People become nothing more than subjects. Like pieces meat you can buy or sell for the right price.

Now consider animal testing. On an evolutionary ladder, granted that they do not have the same capabilities as us. I’m not saying they don’t have less capabilities than us because there are plenty of things animals can do that we cannot eve hope to.

You don’t value animal life as much as human life. Fine. But what has happened in the last thirty years isn’t a simple exploitation of the animal for our benefit… i.e. milking a cow, using the a horse to ride, working with a dog to hunt.

No.

We’ve turned them into soul-less commodities. Into piece of meat that should not pretend to have feelings, relationships – let alone lives. Scientists can do whatever they want with them, subject them to any sort of experiment because they are not living beings – they are flesh that can be bought or sold.

The vast majority of people know this, but avert there eyes. They shrug and carry on…. as long as it’s not them being electrocuted and fed bizarre pills….. oh wait….

I digress.

Only by forcing humans to understand this unwritten social contract we have forced the rest of the planet into – can we learn to treat them as something that has life.

I assume the pharma companies themselves can judge whether a subject is ripe for experimenting on.

and this;

‘companies face regulation all the time on various issues, and unless the authorities turn a blind eye on it – they usually follow regulations’

‘You mean apart from governments using …’

No, I mean including all that stuff you mention, which comes under the heading of ‘society is exploitative as it is, might as well do it properly’.

Where is your logic leading you to?

This is patronising actually. Aren’t poor people (let’s say in this country) not able to make informed decisions?

You seem to have it in your head that I’m advocating forcing poor people to go through with this.

All I’m saying is that they should voluntarily, after being provided with the information, be given the option to give themselves up for testing.

I’ve already provided examples of how this already happens in various cases… all I’m saying is that allowing testing of drugs is simply an extension of what already happens. If you view giving yourself self up for testing as morally wrong – then don’t do it. But why shouldn’t the choice be there? This is simply a libertarian argument.

So your argument that as they are treated like shit anyway we shouldn’t make a big deal of treating them like disposable lab rats does not hold water.

It doesn’t hold water according to you because its morally wrong. That in itself isn’t an argument, merely an opinion. I could say that treating rats or chimpanzees or monkeys as disposable commodities is morally wrong. To that extent we have a difference of opinion, not a clash of facts.

you’ll need better arguments to dissuade me.

If people could make a cold decision to risk their health for gain
People do that anyway.

This is analogous to prostitution; middle class girl who decides to make fast money on her back in some fancy hotel, fine; her call.

Exactly – I’ve always argued for the legalisation and regulation and taxation of prostitution.

The Iranians don’t regulate and that reinforces your argument? WTF?

It reinforces my argument that legalising such a trade of human body parts or entire bodies will not lead to a global exportation of buying bodies from third-world countries for exploitation.

This means a dead subject. Not risk/reward. Dead. Risk doesn’t enter the equation. Where will you get your human subjects? Chinese prisons?

People could sign a statement giving their dead bodies up for donations in return for a sum to their next of kin. Again, a voluntary system. I’m not advocating that dead people be kidnapped from the morgue and be experimented on.

If you came upon a rat gnawing at a baby, would you deliberate about the rat’s entitlement to food? No, you would pick up a brick.

What, saving a life now is suddenly animal cruelty? I can come up with bizarre analogies to make my points too but I prefer a sane discussion.

If he was wearing a necklace of human ears you would consider him a vile psycho freak. Because you know it is not the same.

Only because leather is a mass-produced and chemically engineered product, and for someone to have a necklace of human ears would require breaking into a morgue and cutting them off him/herself.

I’m sure you would think someone wearing a necklace of animal ears is also a freak. Again – please try and come up with sane analogies, not some rubbish comparison.

‘People in poverty often suffer from multiple health problems at once — drug trials usually require those sorts of things to be controlled ‘

I assume the pharma companies themselves can judge whether a subject is ripe for experimenting on.

It is disingenuous to suggest that humane and responsible regulations will be enforced, because the market forces you fetishise will gravitate towards the least expensive, least regulated, least accountable locations

Rubbish – companies face regulation all the time on various issues, and unless the authorities turn a blind eye on it – they usually follow regulations. Otherwise the punitive damages can be huge.

If Britain legalises the practice, it doesn’t mean British companies can go to India to experiment on people there – they would still have to be chosen from and experimented on from here.

Name one offense against human dignity

You mean apart from governments using torture, producing biological weapons, investing in nuclear weapons, using chemical weapons during war (cluster bombs most recently in Iraq), allowing people (in India for example) to live in the most obscenely squallid positions, allowing massacres around the world to go on…. having such an injust legal system (where you have to buy the best lawyers), having a situation where the poor people have no where to even live (like gypsies) and allow the media to target them, while the rich offshore all their money to avoid paying taxes.

You must be having a laugh…

“Patients in Sevagram are poor enough that the benefits of taking part in the study would amount to a health care windfall; among other things, Boehringer Ingelheim guaranteed participants two physicals during each of the three years that the trial would run. For each person enrolled, moreover, the hospital would receive 30,000 rupees (about $665) – no small amount, given the puny budget of the center’s stroke ward, a single room of eight pallet beds.”
[Link]

Your position is riddled with inconsistencies and dodgy logic. You say that;

‘This isn’t a new taboo being broken, just taking an existing one to its logical conclusion.’

Yeah, except that if something (in this case the exploitation of the poor) is morally wrong, then ‘taking the next logical step’ is a step in the wrong direction. The step after that is Soylent Green. So your argument that as they are treated like shit anyway we shouldn’t make a big deal of treating them like disposable lab rats does not hold water.

You said that;

‘If people want to get rid of exploitation entirely, have a comprehensive socialism/communism everywhere so the resources available are equal to everyone, then there this system would be unethical.’

Actually, this is the only situation in which your swiftian suggestion might be ethical. If people could make a cold decision to risk their health for gain, without being presented with the brutal incentive of feeding there starving children, then that is free choice. This is analogous to prostitution; middle class girl who decides to make fast money on her back in some fancy hotel, fine; her call. Some kid in dire poverty driven to service twenty slobs a day so her siblings don’t die; market forces, logical step, fucked up. Plain wrong.

What about this exchange?

‘As a matter of interest, Iran has a completely free market in kidneys. ‘

‘Lol, thank you Steve for that. I never knew it, but it reinforces my POV.’

The Iranians don’t regulate and that reinforces your argument? WTF?

Your claim that you regard all life as equally valuable might make an interesting philosophical stance, but it falls apart in the real world. Because you don’t. If you came upon a rat gnawing at a baby, would you deliberate about the rat’s entitlement to food? No, you would pick up a brick. If a friend showed up in a leather jacket, you might feel uncomfortable and even raise the matter. If he was wearing a necklace of human ears you would consider him a vile psycho freak. Because you know it is not the same.

I’ve raised a couple of points which you have avoided answering, so I’ll raise them again. Many experiments require that organs be dissected to find out the effect of a drug or ailment. This means a dead subject. Not risk/reward. Dead. Risk doesn’t enter the equation. Where will you get your human subjects? Chinese prisons?

fotzpolitic raised a salient point, which you did not address with;

‘People in poverty often suffer from multiple health problems at once — drug trials usually require those sorts of things to be controlled ‘

It is disingenuous to suggest that humane and responsible regulations will be enforced, because the market forces you fetishise will gravitate towards the least expensive, least regulated, least accountable locations. It is what they do. As sure as the sparks fly upwards. Are you saying that you consider it immoral to take a medicine tested on a rat, but if the Khazakstan minister of science assured you that everything was cool, that would be okay? Sure they volunteered, we got the signature right here.

‘All you guys are saying is “its immoral”. That is not a strong enough argument in itself because I see part of this happening already.’

So do I. And it is immoral. It is not a foundation for a philosophy.

finally (for the moment);

‘My point is that society is exploitative as it is, might as well do it properly.’

Name one offense against human dignity which is not covered by that twisted rationale.

Mirax was right, I don’t need to appeal to some puttative god for moral absolutes. You are fundamentally wrong on this.

‘

That is exactly what I’m saying.

j0nz:
Everybody will disagree with you! It happened to me on the glorification of terrorism. Nobody agreed with me. Sniff.
Hehe – but I’m not dissuaded yet. All you guys are saying is “its immoral”. That is not a strong enough argument in itself because I see part of this happening already.

Petals:
I’m sure that drugs/comestic companies must be overseen by an independent ethics committee.
I believe the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has some regulations for pharmas, but not enough in my opinion… They have a regulatory body here too, forget the name…
Though I don’t believe there is a regulatory body specifically for animal testing. All that is self-policed, a situation I’m not happy about.

As for the cat-mouse scenario – that is part of the circle of life (how else is a cat supposed to survive). I have no problems with natural law. I’m just saying we live outside that law currently.

Not once in your posts have I read about the possibilty of a human being being severely disabled or killed through testing.

risk / reward. I already explained that the poor end up paying for their lack of resources through worse health, this is merely an extension of that. Its quite simple to get your head round. This isn’t a new taboo being broken, just taking an existing one to its logical conclusion.

I wonder how a fatwa on animal testing/human testing would beef out?

Sunny if god judges animals to be equal to the human, what for the cat who plays with his mouse, dissecting it piecemeal, one organ at a time. If the law of Karma applies to all beings, what is the difference between a rightous lion and a one thats commited a sin?

By applying your laws of morality which are fundamentaly about humans and human society and formed along those lines onto nature and natural law makes a mockery of both human morality and natural existence. You are already asking for a different set of bahaviour from humanity then you would of any other living being.

Don’t get me wrong, cruelty is rightly frowned upon in any form because a person who is capable of cruelty to an animal can and would be under suspicion of being capable of cruelty to a human being. The argument is about necessity. I believe that animal testing is necessary if medicine that will save human lifes is to be devoloped.

Testing on humans? Not once in your posts have I read about the possibilty of a human being being severely disabled or killed through testing. I doubt any scientist would undertake such a responsabilty easily and the net result would be less testing and the net result of that would be, some medicines that are never developed. Which of course means that a greater number of people will die sooner.