i'm just watching the one show,where they are discussing animal testing. then a thought came into my head(a rare occurence!!!).why don't they test,new drugs on real evil criminals instead(i.e rapists,murderers,bankers e.t.c),my reasoning being,the moment somebody does something like that,they should loose their human rights!!! .just wondered what other peoples views were on this?

No. They shouldn't

Are you for real?

Why has no one else thought of this, an absolutely genius plan

fantastic. racefaceec90 for pm.

what you are suggesting is removing human rights from some criminals – ie drawing a line. the problem is where do you draw the line

peodo
rapist
murderer
bugarlar
traffic crime

the problem comes how many sp30 = a burglary, how many burglary = a rape. what about diminished responsibility due to mental health.

does a mental health patient rape = 'normal person' burglary or traffic offence.

not a simple issue really.

because they might accidentally give the evil crims super powers?

good point thomthumb.

I'll have some free drugs if anyone has them

It's because hardened criminals are too difficult to get the needles into.

Oh, and the other human rights stuff.

Been done before ?

hey and lets bring eugenics back while we are it! [/sarc]

Yeah I think that many poeple who are in prison should of been hung a long time a go, but lowing a human to a animal level is rediculas. Nearly as silly as suggesting that Apes should have human rights.

You would be better testing them on politicians

sp30's fair game IMO.

I can't believe nobody's mentioned Josef Mengele yet.

Thread closed (Godwin)

not a simple issue really

It is a simple issue. We don't test stuff on people because it's a stupid, stupid idea. HTH.

I think they should test new drugs on hard up students and easily influenced people from the bottom of the social ladder for a nominal sum of money, say £500 – £1000. That would probably do the trick?

Bollocks, have you ever tried holding someone down to force something down their throat?

Its difficult enough with a dog, bloody hard work with a monkey (Cymo's bite like a bastard) – let alone a 6'2" pikey!

While I totally agree that forcing prisoners to be guinea pigs for new drugs is against their human rights, what about the option of voluntary testing in return for payment or even some sort of proportional reduction in sentence? I mean, if people get paid for it on the outside, how much of a human rights violation would it really be to let anyone incarcerated have a similar option?

Just a thought……

As djglover says. Orwell was wrong. You can get people to do absolutely anything you want, far more effectively than the nazis ever managed. But you have to give them money so that they can buy ipods, coercing them is no use. 🙂

Human Rights are intrinsic and inherent, and cannot be awarded or removed.

it's quite a morale dilemma isn't it.to be honest,i am against causing pain,to any living entity(i'm not a hippy,honest),but the fact that i came up with this forum question,has definitely made me think.(an eye for an eye,will eventually make the world blind,as ghandi said).

You have absolutely no idea what you think actually, do you? 🙂

Go away and practice for a bit.

djglover – Member

I think they should test new drugs on hard up students and easily influenced people from the bottom of the social ladder for a nominal sum of money, say £500 – £1000. That would probably do the trick?

Sarcasm? This is already done. Often foreigners as well

I believe viagra was tested on hardened criminals

Sarcasm?

Yep!

it takes a lot of time & work & testing before you get to the stage where you have a potential new drug to test. Drug development process at AnimalResearch.info

And no one should be forced or coerced to participate in clinical trials. International Committee on Harmonisation

Don't they get round this by advertising the drug tests on the radio and offering to cover your travelling expenses? People then freely volunteer to have themselves injected with drugs.

I'm all for it as long as I get an exemption under all circumstances both foreseen and unforeseen…..

….. and think

NO. They should be tested on dogs owners.

Test skin care products on criminals, if they had to use moisturiser they would be less hard and could one day be safe to be reinstated to society.

by the time drugs get to human trials they pretty safe, your just looking for side-effects, not obvious in animals (headaches, numbness, erections) and working out the theraputic window etc etc etc.

There was a study/survey published a while back about researchers attitiudes to testing, and by the time it reached human testing most would happily inject themseleves to test them if it were allowed.

So why don't they then?

no, that's not right. There was a program on about the SS the other day and they took some volunteers off the street and set them up so they thought they were giving elecrical shocks to the other volunteers. To see if the 'we were just following orders' mentality still stands.

Despite the volunteers being able to hear the others apparently screaming in pain, the vast majority carried on pressing the buttons because they researcher told them it was ok.

I'm not sure how this relates to testing drugs but some of the same words are there.

I think ChubbyBlokeInLycra hit the real reason.

Samuri, it wasn't the SS. It was US students in the
1960's.

RF90's post was originally about using prisoners INSTEAD of animal testing. Trouble is, in the early stages of testing, you need an awful lot of animals, and you need to dissect them afterwards to see what the effects are on the various tissues.
Which might be a problem with people.

Human Rights are intrinsic and inherent, and cannot be awarded or removed.

Like in China?

Like in China?

I think we should aim to set the bar a little higher than China.

Surprised nobody has suggested testing experimental drugs on bike thieves yet.

Don't think it'd work on prisoners, they're all on smack anyway as I understand it, which would probably invalidate the results.

How about Daily Mail readers? They're a virtuous bunch of people. The perfect guinea pigs.

Moses – Member
RF90's post was originally about using prisoners INSTEAD of animal testing. Trouble is, in the early stages of testing, you need an awful lot of animals, and you need to dissect them afterwards to see what the effects are on the various tissues.
Which might be a problem with people.

Why? Have seen a few autopsies and they seem to be able to do them quite well? 😀