Are human experiments on violent criminals justified? This article explores the possibilities and limitations of such experiments by examining the conflict between human rights, ethics, and scientific development.
I recently read on a personal blog that “human experiments could be conducted on people in prison”. This article was a proposal to conduct experiments on people who had been sentenced to death by a court and who were going to die anyway, rather than just letting them die, for the sake of social welfare and the advancement of science. And among those sentenced to death, the article argued that experiments could be conducted on so-called vicious criminals who had caused great social controversy, such as serial killers, regardless of their consent.
It may seem a bit extreme, but I could partially sympathize with his arguments because he had his own logic and presented it in a plausible manner. But even if he is a vicious criminal who has caused a huge social uproar, can the government and society conduct experiments on him while ignoring his human rights? My conclusion to this question is that human experiments should not be conducted.
Of course, if experiments on the human body did not cause any problems to the health of the test subjects (people), there would be no problem. However, given that the path of science in human history has not always left a trail of correct directions, I will develop my argument on the premise that there is a sufficient possibility that experiments will adversely affect the health of the test subjects.
First, such an argument will be judged false by its basic premise. The basic principle of this argument is as follows. It is based on the premise that since a vicious criminal has violated the human rights of others, we do not need to protect the human rights of the criminal. This “reap what you sow” principle causes many problems. For example, just because someone broke my leg in an accident, I cannot break the perpetrator’s leg. In this way, even a vicious criminal will not think that he should be the subject of an experiment that he does not want, regardless of his past actions.
In addition, the person who broke my leg has no reason to break my leg, but should find another appropriate way to compensate for the damage I have suffered. Similarly, an evil criminal has been sentenced to death for the crime he committed according to the law. Therefore, he has no reason to be a subject of human experimentation.
Those who oppose this will argue that it is not right to simply cover up the crimes of vicious criminals with a death sentence or life imprisonment. They will also argue that the necessity and legitimacy of experiments on prisoners is justified by considering the interests of society as a whole. However, if you think about it a little more, you can easily find reasons why this idea should not or cannot be realized.
Second, when trying to realize such an idea, it is difficult to do so because the definition of a vicious criminal is vague. There are different types of crimes, and depending on the type and nature of the crime, the person is punished according to the law. However, unlike measuring the type of crime, there is no clear standard for measuring the severity of a crime. When comparing the difference between a person who stole a small amount of money and a person who stole a large amount of money, or a person who killed a small number of people and a person who killed a large number of people, it is impossible to take an objective approach without subjective thoughts intervening. Therefore, it is impossible to conduct human experiments on only vicious criminals, because vicious criminals who have caused great social controversy cannot be accurately defined.
Third, it is a false prioritization of values to support experiments on evil criminals. The argument is that the experiment is justified by considering the welfare and interests of society as a whole. However, the dignity of human life and the sanctity of life are values that must come before all else. Even if the experiment is for the welfare and interests of society as a whole, if it is conducted without regard to moral values such as the sanctity of life, it will ultimately be detrimental to the welfare and interests of society as a whole.
Another controversial issue that has been in the news recently is research on children. I have a negative view on this issue as well. The first problem is how to balance the protection of children from human rights violations with the need for experimentation to further scientific research. The problem with research on children is that it is difficult to obtain the child’s consent because, unlike adults, children do not have sufficient decision-making capacity, and consent must be obtained from the child’s parents or other guardians, which does not reflect the child’s wishes.
Second, therapeutic research is justified by the health benefits to children, but in the case of non-therapeutic research, there is controversy as to whether it should be allowed because of the possibility of risk rather than the health benefits to children. Non-therapeutic research is also necessary to promote the health and well-being of children in society as a whole, but there are problems in terms of protecting the human rights of children who are the subjects of research.
Thirdly, when the subject of research is a child in care, there is a high possibility of human rights violations. Children in shelters should be more protected, but they are often the subjects of research because of the convenience and medical effectiveness of the experiment, and this idea of putting convenience first has many problems.
In summary, the idea of conducting experiments on malevolent criminals is based on a false premise, and the vague criteria for implementing the idea are problematic, and there is a priority error in the values contained in the argument. In addition, I believe that research on children is not possible because it is difficult to reflect the will of the parties and there is a risk of violating the human rights of children.
We agree and recognize that research on the human body is necessary for human welfare and the advancement of science. What is important is that the subjects of such research should be selected according to a reasonable procedure and method that everyone can agree upon, and that they should not be prisoners or children who are not socially advanced. A more moral attitude and ethical sense of responsibility will be required for conducting scientific experiments and research.
