Ah yes ... alluding to the Nazi war experiments on concentration camp survivors of which the allies utilized ? I would use the data ... there's no point in letting their lives go to waste. If the medical data could be used to save lives than I would say it would be more unethical to simply destroy the data knowing that the data could be used for the cause of good.

___________________
Retro ...

I see the following problems

1. Are experiments on humans to be condemned?

yes, whatever the "goal" might be, in case they (the test persons) do not agree.
no, if they fully agree (being totally aware of their decision ). It is their life, it's their personal choice so what's the essential difference between donating organs and agreeing to be experimented with?

2. In this specific case, did the humans agree?

Based on your story, not at all. They were kept by force, trotured, killed, treated as objects without free will rather than human beings.

3. Ergo, in this case, the experiments are NOT justified, are to be condemned, are "wrong".

4. Can the results (more recisely:conclusions, knowledge won by them) be seperated from the ACT that lead to them.
Philosophical problem

If yes, then I tend to say that they should be taken with and used (maybe published). However, they could include info that are better not revealed. Things that humans are better not aware of. I can't really define it now, but i've got a vague conception of what it might be. Not everything we know should be known. Not everything that "helps" should be used.

If no, if you are of the opnion that you cannot use the result, ignoring the act that produced it, then leave it there, or even better burn it down.

I'll think of more later...

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant I see the following problems 1. Are experiments on humans to be condemned? yes, whatever the "goal" might be, in case they (the test persons) do not agree. no, if they fully agree (being totally aware of their decision ). It is their life, it's their personal choice so what's the essential difference between donating organs and agreeing to be experimented with? 2. In this specific case, did the humans agree? Based on your story, not at all. They were kept by force, trotured, killed, treated as objects without free will rather than human beings. 3. Ergo, in this case, the experiments are NOT justified, are to be condemned, are "wrong". 4. Can the results (more recisely:conclusions, knowledge won by them) be seperated from the ACT that lead to them. Philosophical problem If yes, then I tend to say that they should be taken with and used (maybe published). However, they could include info that are better not revealed. Things that humans are better not aware of. I can't really define it now, but i've got a vague conception of what it might be. Not everything we know should be known. Not everything that "helps" should be used. If no, if you are of the opnion that you cannot use the result, ignoring the act that produced it, then leave it there, or even better burn it down. I'll think of more later...

I must disagree with you here. Any knowledge will be found out sooner or later, so it's better to construct mechanisms to prevent the abuse rather than to turn a blind eye and walk away.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I must disagree with you here. Any knowledge will be found out sooner or later, so it's better to construct mechanisms to prevent the abuse rather than to turn a blind eye and walk away.

Who says that? Judging by this story the camp is in the middle of an huge jungle. So you can think about taking or leaving without risking too much.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant Who says that? Judging by this story the camp is in the middle of an huge jungle. So you can think about taking or leaving without risking too much.

It's not like that jungle is the only place such a knowledge can ever be attained. It can be attained by either having rogue countries reproduce those experiments in the future, or by finding another means to get to the same result.

But aside from that, you haven't said what is the nature of those discoveries. If it is something that could help the human race, would you deny the knowledge already discovered that might help millions of people, just because means of it's discovery were wrong and unethical? What's done is done, and two wrongs do not make a right. It's unethical to mutilate people to gain knowledge and information. It is not unethical to use that knowledge for good causes.

___________________
1+1=10

You're raising it to a general level. That's no problem but trancaholic was giving us one clearly-defined specific situation instead of asking us IN GENERAL. Thus you should appply general principles to this *concrete* story.

Saying that others might do the same in the future is speculation. If that is your argument then why not try to be the first one who actually DOES it too (even before those camp-leaders did it), so that YOUR results will be used for good purpose.

I haven't said anything about the nature since trancaholic didn't tell us about them. If they were helpful I'd support their use in case you are morally able to give these experiments some kind of JUSTICE as you take advantage of them. That is all.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ah yes ... alluding to the Nazi war experiments on concentration camp survivors of which the allies utilized ? I would use the data ... there's no point in letting their lives go to waste. If the medical data could be used to save lives than I would say it would be more unethical to simply destroy the data knowing that the data could be used for the cause of good.

Most of the "human testing" that was conducted on Jews and other "undesirables" under the Nazi regime had no scientific value and was mostly tantamount to varying forms of torture. Some of the experiments conducted included submerging victims in very cold water, placing them in a vacuum chamber and then lowering the pressure, and at least one instance of two people being sewn together in an attempt to "study" siamese twins.

Had there been any recoverable scientifically valuable data left behind, then yes I would agree with you that it would be unethical to destroy that data. Even assuming there is no scientific value, I think it would be important for the world to know the specifics of the forced testing.

Voluntary human testing is a completely different matter...

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Nov-18-2003 at 18:52

I'm not sure I fully understand the problem. What, if any, harm could be caused by trying to gain knowledge from such records? And, if no harm would be caused by doing so, by what standard might such a course of action be considered unethical?

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Most of the "human testing" that was conducted on Jews and other "undesirables" under the Nazi regime had no scientific value and was mostly tantamount to varying forms of torture. Some of the experiments conducted included submerging victims in very cold water, placing them in a vacuum chamber and then lowering the pressure, and at least one instance of two people being sewn together in an attempt to "study" siamese twins. Had there been any recoverable and scientifically valuable data left behind, then yes I would agree with you that it would be unethical to destroy that data. Even assuming their is no scientific value, I think it would be important for the world to know the specifics of the forced testing. Voluntary human testing is a completely different matter...

edit- I can't spell at all early in the morning lol.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant Saying that others might do the same in the future is speculation. If that is your argument then why not try to be the first one who actually DOES it too (even before those camp-leaders did it), so that YOUR results will be used for good purpose.

Because it would be unethical to do so. But since it's been done, using the data will not change anything that happened, it only has potential to improve our lives in the future. Therefore there's no reason to throw it away.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ah yes ... alluding to the Nazi war experiments on concentration camp survivors of which the allies utilized ?

Actually I had no idea that the allies utilized data. In fact I did not even know that data was found. I started thinking about this because I heard of some of the experiments that japanese officials conducted on chinese people during WW2 (I think it was WW2 - do not hold it against me).

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'm not sure I fully understand the problem. What, if any, harm could be caused by trying to gain knowledge from such records? And, if no harm would be caused by doing so, by what standard might such a course of action be considered unethical?

The reason why I am hesitant to endorse use of the data is possibly due to a mental defect on my part. It goes somewhere along what TranceGiant said (no offence intended): If we use the data, we accept that it is useful, and then we accept that the goal of the evil-doers (as Bush would label them) is worth pursuing (although not necessarily in the same fashion).
From this point I cannot determine whether endorsing the goal lends some kind of credit (or justification) to the acts of the evil-doers. If so, then I feel that in some cases the moral cost of this assignment of credit would outweigh the physical benefits gained from the data.

To put it in another way: Imagine that my sister had been exposed to horrible things, way worse than what I can imagine sitting in my comfortable chair tonight, while some doctor told her that the pain was bestowed on her, because someone - perhaps - could design a more durable lipstick or faster paint dissolvent some time in the future, using the obtained data. Then imagine further that she dies from this ill-treatment. Then I'd be pissed if someone came up with a better lipstick or paint dissolvent because of the data from the torture. Am I being rational on this one? I guess not but then ethics were never about rational though processes.
Assume that the goal was not a better lipstick but a treatment for some disease (not necessarily fatal). Would this change my views on post mortem utilization? I honestly cannot say, but I do hope that you at least get the problem.