The New York Times ran a story today about nerve gas testing conducted on (apparently unaware) sailors in the 1960s. This brings to mind otherinstances of government experimentation, including the infamous Tuskegee syphilis trials. Clearly, it seems, the United States doesn’t have a spotless record in this regard (and there’s an argument that such conduct is more recent than we think–see here or here.
All of which raises the question: Can any of these experiments be defended on utilitarian (or any other) grounds? That is, are there any circumstances in which the governmental interest in discovering the effects of certain biological substances or medical conditions on an unsuspecting human population outweighs the interests of that population in being protected from bodily harm? Obviously, one can make a distinction between civilians and soldiers, such that the CIA civilian LSD experiments (assuming they occurred) are much less defensible than the use of military personnel in similar tests. But even there–unless you make a bizarre assumption of risk argument that allows the government to treat its soldiers however it wishes–the problem of informed consent remains. I’m inclined to believe that no testing of dangerous substances should be conducted without the knowledge and consent of the subjects–and that, therefore, past experiments of this kind were inexcusable (as well as being a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code.)
Well, one man’s justification is another man’s human rights violation. IOW, I’m sure the US gummint entities involved had clearly understood reasons which were used to justify these experiments to other US gummint entities. They just wouldn’t hold water when applied against either US constitutional or international standards, IMO.
Good point, xeno. Let me ask a follow-up question: Do you think that the morality of such actions is sufficiently unambiguous today that government entities would no longer be able to justify, even to themselves, experimenting on unconsenting human subjects?
At what point have we, or will we, become enlightened enough as a nation as to be assured that our government won’t be testing new viruses or exotic germ strains on its own population?
Two more thoughts: 1a) Is the moral repugnance of this kind of thing mitigated if it’s directed only at citizens of other countries? 1b) What if the only countries we target are those who are hostile towards us? 2a) What about using U.S. prisoners? Does that make it better? 2b) What about only prisoners who are on death row?
I guess I’m just trying to gauge the extent to which to consensus position here is absolutist, or nearly so.
Well, Gad, if you look back at the early post 9/11 threads, I think it’d be very hard to argue that the morality surrounding government policies in time of “war” is sufficiently unambiguous that our nation (or most nations, I suppose) will never resort to such experimentation again.
1a) I don’t think that would mitigate most citizen’s repugnance [in peace time]. Personally, I find it just as unacceptable.
1b) Sadly, I think this would mitigate the repugnance of many to a much greater extent. My personal view is same as above.
2a) Nope.
2b) We’re still talking about unconsenting subjects, correct? Then, no.
Obviously, informed consent is required from subjects of medical research. So, the normal answer to the OP is, “No.”
However, the OP asks if there are any exceptions. I am trying to imagine when the testing might be appropriae without knowledge or consent. It would have to be some emergency so great as to cause the government to waive their existing rules and safeguards with regard to consent. And, it would have to be a situation where consent couldn’t be obtained, or where the subjects’ ignorance was a crucial aspect of the research.
If the question is merely “should” the government conduct tests on unsuspecting subjects then the answer is “no.”
But, to play “Devil’s Advocate” I will attempt to justify these tests.
The OP contained this sentence:
Justification:
A government is an entity unto itself. It is made up of individual citizens, but the citizens are not acknowledged as individuals in the eyes of the government entity, or “They.” This entity is animate and has knowledge of itself. Just as any other entity with this self-awareness it has an instinctive sense of preservation and is interested in it’s level of security.
As individuals in a society that supports a government, we place a lower value on our own self security in subordination to the value of the security of “They.” We view our individual self as “I”, when we group ourselves together in terms of common interests or goals we refer to ourselves as “We”. If “We” determines that someone is needed to lead the group then the entity of “They” spontaneously appears. Now the individual has the burden of securing not only himself but is also obligated to secure the other entities that he is a part of and is expected to support. The comparitive worth of all of these entities gives us a value of ourself to ourself and the value of ourself to the other entities, “We” and “They.” An “I” has great value to itself. It has less value than “We”, which has less value than “They.”
This activity is instinctive. A worker ant is subordinate to her queen - drone honeybees also have a queen. Each subordinate group values the queen’s security over its own and, if needed, is willing to die for the queen. Humans may have a little better sense of self worth than a bee or an ant but we still have our queen. In fact, we have a greater burden; we have hundreds of queens and all are considered to be more important than “I.” Even if the entire “We” has to perish to protect “They” it is justifiable, “They” has more value than “We.”
end of Justification
But, like I said, “If the question is merely ‘should’ the government conduct tests on unsuspecting subjects then the answer is ‘no’.”
**3a. Yes. It’s certainly correct for my wife, who is is a (state) government medical researcher.
3b. Never. Eteranl vigilance is the price of liberty.
YGIAGAM, but I’m afraid scientists might well have fewer qualms if the subjects weren’t American
I’d be in favor of using Saddam Hussein as a subject.
It seems that I have read of cases where prisoners were offered early release in exchange for volunteering. I do not think our scientists could use prisoners without their consent.
It sounds logical, but somehow I cannot imagine it taking place.
I am reminded of a Charles Addams cartoon… set in a patent office on a high floor, the patent clerk is hold a ray-gun-contraption pointed out the window and says to the inventor, “Death ray, my foot! It doesn’t even slow them up!”
No. Testing unaware subjects is never permissible. The worst instance of this, in my personal opinion, was allowing genetically modified plants to be grown and consumed (by humans and by animals which would be consumed by humans) with absolute minimal, non-conclusive testing beforehand. “We’ll just sit back and watch, as long as Monsanto’s happy . . .”
I’m not going to try and answer any of the questions posed, but rather sort of pose one of my own? Would you willingly submit to experiemental testing by a governmental/military body ( and were given fairly generous compensation) if you were told of the “risks/complications” beforehand and those risks included say a 75% chance of dying within 5-6 years of completeing the study or contracting cancer within 8 years of completing the study?
I doubt you would get many volunteers for that one.
Also, while in almost all cases, substances are tested on other animals first, the side affects may be very different fro animals and humans. Also, I think one has to be fairly brain-dead not to know that there is always some amount of risk involved in clinical/experimental studies/trials. Look at the whole thalidomide horrors of the late 1950’s early '60’s.
for hte sake of an arguement, I’ll give it a shot:
The only situation I can think of would be if the alternitive was some sort of mass-hysteria that a reasonable person could believe might result in wide-spread destruction and death. However, I am thinking more of testing people for something than testing something on people. For example, if the government was to recieve a reputable report that up to 25% of the population was infected with a form of Mad Cow Disease and that it would carry a 100% mortality rate within five years. I think one could argue that simply announcing that would cause people to go crazy. The government needs to know if this is true before proceeding, so I can see myself agreeing that some sort of covert system to test a meaningful slice of the populaiton for the disease would be justified. In fact, I think that in that senario one could argue that a scientist who released such information: "1 in 4 may very likely be infected . . . " without giving the government a chance to act covertly first was committing a moral, if not a legal, wrong.
As far as testing a drug or other treatment goes, that is dicier. If, in my above senario, the government had what they thought was an effective, simple cure, but did not want to panic people by admitting there was a reason to need a cure, I suppose one could say testing would be legitimate. However, even in that case I thiink you would be morally obliged to tell the patients they were part of a test, and just not why.
Back in the 1950’s and early '60’s thalidomide was prescribed to large numbers of pregnant women in Europe, I believe as some kind of tranquilizer, (someone please correct me if I’m wrong.) Unfortunately, the thalidomide led to thousands of babies being born with horrible deformaties: no arms, no legs, one arm, one leg, misshapen arms and legs etc.
The drug was never put into wide use in the US and once links were made between the birth defects and the thalidomide, it was yanked off the shelves in the US and Europe.
I believe that during the height of the Cold War, some justification could be made that such tests needed to take place, various laws and regulations be damned.
As to whether the moral effects of testing would be mitigated if conducted on a foreign populace: To me, it depends on what country we are talking about, specifically. To test chemical weapons secretly in Canada woudl be unacceptable. They are a close ally, and ‘kindred civilization’. To test said weapons in Somalia, sure. Go for it. They dance around with our dead and burn American flags, I have no love for them. I suspect each person would have their own list of acceptable and unacceptable nations.
Life without chance of parole prisoners should be given the option of participating in tests, with various incentives. Death row prisoners should be put to death, since they are on death row.
Ultimately, I think the point is becoming more and more moot, as computer simulations will finally start approaching ‘real world’ conditions.
