Okay, I’m typing this on the fly with no regard whatsoever for grammar, syntax, spelling, or coherence. I am also high on life, love, and, most of all, beer. Apologies in advance.
Basically, I have a plan to resolve both of the looming bird flu crises. The first, obviously, is the potential threat of the H5N1 avian flu virus combining with the human flu virus inside a human host unfortunate enough to harbour both viruses simultaneously, thereby allowing H5N1 to meld with human flu to form a mutant supervirus with the carefree transmissability of human flu and the lethality of avian flu. The second crisis is the global ink shortage precipitated by MCAS (or media cataclysm anticipation syndrome) which is probably driving several pretty plants to the verge of extinction as newspapers around the globe hype the threat like a Bush v Bin Laden steel cage match.
Anyway, here’s my plan. The Government selects a death row inmate, someone who’s going to die anyway, and presents him with an ultimatum.
Option 1: He can agree to be a guinea pig, deliberately infected with both human flu and avian flu in an attempt to deliberately cultivate the mutant strain causing so much commotion at the moment. If he does develop the mutant strain, scientists could take a blood sample and, now knowing what the mutated strain would look like, develop a vaccine which could potentially save millions of lives. In return, he would be the recipient of the best medical care money could buy and, if he pulls through (I, as a complete know-nothing would estimate his chances of survival at around 50%) he would be given a full pardon for any crimes he has committed and would be let back into civil society along with a substantial financial reward for his troubles.
Option 2: He could spend the next 23 hours of every day in his cell waiting for his appointment with old sparky.
Now, the upshot of his assent would be the possibility of creating a vaccine which could save millions of lives. Without Government intervention he would most likely die anyway (for simplicity the Government would select an inmate who was not only unquestionably guilty and had not only admitted his guilt and repented, but would probably not be a risk to others - so no serial killers). Provided the Government had his permission (he could sign a waiver or something), would this sort of procedure be ethical? After all, his co-operation, no matter what potential benefits it could reap, wouldn’t absolve him of his original crime. What of the life (lives) he took? What kind of implications would the decision to let such a person go free if the aforementioned procedure was successful have on the concept that human life was sacred? Wouldn’t it basically be a tacit admission that, when push came to shove, the only thing that matters are the numbers? Or do the potential benefits outweigh any high-falutin academic concerns about justice and the irrevocable harm caused by egregiously violent acts?
For the record, I am a utilitarian and would wholeheartedly advocate such action up to and including letting the death row inmate go free, if that’s what it took. What do you think?