Prisoners were tested on, “prisoners nationwide were being used for research of all kinds - from testing chemical warfare agents to determining how x-raying testicles affected sperm count” (Skloot 129). Some of the prisoners volunteered to be used as a test subject while many others did not. Southam injected cancerous cells into more than 600 people, mostly cancer patients to begin with, and proceeding with healthy patients to see if it would make a difference; “Since people with cancer seemed to reject the cells more slowly than the healthy people did, he thought that by timing the reaction rate, he might be able to find undiagnosed cases of cancer” (Skloot 130). However, the healthy patients were not aware of what Southam was injecting into their bodies, if the patients were to ask about what he was doing to them, he would say that he was testing them for cancer but in all reality he was injecting cancer into their bodies.
In order to research the theory of cancerous cells being infectious, two scientists traveled to an Ohio maximum security prison to conduct several experiments on prisoners. This testing involved taking the HeLa cells, and injecting the prisoners, to observe possible reactions. Despite the fact that the prisoners were informed of the risks, this experimentation was conducted intentionally to cause disease in another human being. This theory, however, was disproved as an infectious cancer because none of the test subjects developed full blown cancer.
In an Ohio prison, 65 inmates were chosen to receive cancerous cells injections into their arms. These prisoners were chosen because they are in a vulnerable position in life with the loss of their freedom and identity. These prisoners are willing to do whatever it takes to not be in jail; this means agreeing to a potentially extremely dangerous situation in order to earn brownie points within the eyes of society. It was not until later in history when prison experiments became regulated because of prisoners’ inability to provide informed consent. These prisoners could use the experiment as a way to prove to the board that they are fit for society because they are participating in a help for
During World War II there were a series of experiments conducted by the Nazi’s on all people besides those of the “Aryan Race”. There is much controversy surrounding this topic due to the specific motives of these experiments and whether or not it would ethically and morally fit to use such data collected. These experiments included seawater injections to figure out a safe way to desalinate salt water to make it drinkable, hypothermia tests and the period of time humans can withstand these conditions without becoming unconscious, and starving subjects to see how long it would take them to die. On the opposite side of the common opinion of this topic, there is the idea that the cruel experiments done by the Nazis were for learning purposes and should be used to help the medical field.
The prisoners, who quite evidently held zero control over the entirety of the situation, found themselves suffering from heightened levels of anxiety and stress, with some even developing depression and other mental illnesses. The denial of these basic human rights was one of the many ethical implications that came about as the experiment and the corresponding information were released to the public. Trauma doesn’t sum up all that was experienced by those selected as prisoners, and the remnants of the damage can still be felt
On day six Zimbardo and Milgram decided to conclude the experiment. Zimbardo originally intended to explore how prisoners adapt to powerlessness, but he has contended that the experiment demonstrates how swiftly arbitrary assignment of power can lead to abuse. (Maher, The anatomy of obedience. P. 408) Once the experiment was completed Zimbardo and Milgram concluded that generally people will conform to the roles they are told to play.
Human experimentation can be extensively characterized as anything done to a person to figure out how it will influence him. Its principle target is the procurement of new exploratory information instead of treatment. In the event that a trial is at last advantageous to others or even to the subject himself, this doesn't imply that treatment filled a critical need. Humans have long been used as subjects for a variety of experiments.
In 1932, government doctors conducted a medical experiment known as the Tuskegee study. It took place in Macon County, Alabama. The Public Health Service launched 6 projects in the South in predominately poor black communities. One project took place in Macon County. The doctors were determined to diagnose as many as 10,000 people.
Other experiments included injecting horse urine into the prisoner’s kidneys, starvation, and exposing these people to extreme, lethal, amounts of radiation. The workers, scientist, and doctors who carried out these experiments called the prisoners used as test subjects “logs” to separate any type of emotional feelings or remorse they may have for what they were doing to these poor
The laboratories in which rabbits and other animals are tested, the rabbits are held in small cages by themselves for weeks and months. There is no sunlight and the rabbits are not allowed to go outside. Rabbit 32 which is one of the 170,000 rabbits who will be killed this year due to animal testing, is locked up by himself waiting for people to do test on him. Some of the tests that Rabbit 32 has endured is being fed chemicals to see how it affects the rabbit. Another test that the scientist do is, a device to hold the rabbit down so it cannot move and the scientist drip chemicals into the eyes and onto the skin and wait to see how the rabbits react to the chemical.
The experiment was executed well. Yet, there are unethical practices happened during the experiment. First, the participants were not fully informed about the experiment. The researchers did not explain to the participants the processes in conducting the experiment. The participants were not informed that they would be arrested by cops in their homes.
Their answer was ten per cent; the reality was fifty percent of the participants obeyed the commands fully, disregarding the student’s cries of pain and protest. He came to the conclusion that the vast majority of people would comply to the demands of a greater authority figure, even if it was wrong or forced someone to hurt another human being. It’s a scary thought to think that half of the people involved in this experiment continued to go on with the procedure, even when they were “hurting” the other person— and the operation was a fluke, commanded by a psychologist from Yale. If someone that insignificant can hold that much power over people, what sort of things would we do if it was the government demanding requests? One issue that has sparked a great deal of controversy regarding Milgram’s experiment is the ethicalness— or lack, thereof— of it.
Although the experimentation of animals has furthered medical knowledge, it should not be allowed because it is brutal and animals are unable to give their approval. In order to do a study on humans it must be authorized by them, where animals are unable to give consent, which strikes questions in the world of science on whether this is morally acceptable. Although animal experimentation can result in saving the lives of millions, many find it to be cruel and unjust. Seeing as animals are unable to speak for themselves, they are still able to express their emotions through their behavior.
Medical Research has the potential to advance society and make life better for everyone in it. However, the ends cannot justify the means; the rights of the subjects of research cannot be violated no matter the possible benefit to mankind. Despite this, time and time again, it has been very easy for, at least allegedly well-meaning scientists to violate the rights of their research subjects because they wanted to help society as a whole. Such experiments were not performed in secret by a minority of scientists; they were often done “by respected investigators at leading medical institutions and were published in medical journals (Scandals and Tragedies 3). " It is vital that we understand the circumstances of these experiments and why they happened so
Specific Purpose: By the end of my speech, the audience will know about the problem of conducting experiments on animals and the ethical issue of the cruel treatment of animals by the researchers. While the problem of conducting experiments on animals draws attention of the society, the speech would present the limitation of animal experiments and outline the alternatives. Central Idea: 1. Conducting experiments on animals has become one of crucial ethical issues of the modern society and it has even been banned in some countries.
