Could non-consensual human experimentation ever be justified?

If the benefits were just so as to outweigh the losses? Or do you think such a situation could never be for the better?

Some recent examples of non-consensual human experimentation include the (1967) injection of pregnant women with radioactive cortisol to see if it would effect the foetus, the 2010 partnership of Raytheon and Californian prisons to test a heat weapon which would cause "unbearable pain", the 1961 Milgram Experiments and, in the 2000s, artificial blood was transfused into research subjects without consent by Northfield Labs, which was later linked to a significant increase in the chances of heart attacks and death.

Saying all of this, however, I could envisage a situation in which this could be potentially justifiable.

I fell as though everyone should have a say as to whether or not they wish to be human guinea pigs. Yes, that even includes lifers in prison.

No. That's a total violation of bodily autonomy.

No, but that won't stop it from happening.

Yes, meatbags only exist to further the progress of science.

But seriously, no. Not even on the worst scum in the world.

If it's for the sake of the majority (and I really mean majority, like the suffering of 1000 people for the sake of 7 billion), then yeah, it is justified. Fucked up, but justified. If it's solely for the sake of science, then no, it isn't.

Yes, meatbags only exist to further the progress of science.

But seriously, no. Not even on the worst scum in the world.

So. . .I can't experiment on meatbags?

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

No

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Yes, meatbags only exist to further the progress of science.

But seriously, no. Not even on the worst scum in the world.

So. . .I can't experiment on meatbags?

Yes and No >.>

Yes, meatbags only exist to further the progress of science.

But seriously, no. Not even on the worst scum in the world.

So. . .I can't experiment on meatbags?

Yes and No >.>

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Yes, meatbags only exist to further the progress of science.

But seriously, no. Not even on the worst scum in the world.

So. . .I can't experiment on meatbags?

Yes and No >.>

Well you see, Meatbags are unaugmented humans.
Who at this present time are protected by a number of laws <_<

But say for example, someone where to create a servitor factory.

Then the meatbags cease to be unaugmented humans and become literal meatbags with some techy bits.

Soooooo you wouldn't be experimenting on humans. Just on servitors.

I suppose when it's for the greater good -"The greater good"-, then it can be justifiable to an extent.

However I fail to see how injecting radioactive isotopes into pregnant women even if it were consensual has any scientific value, at all. Also, the artificial blood replacement should have been consensual, and subjects notified of the potential risks. These examples are just bad science.

If these scientific experiments relied on not telling them it was a test (though you could always test false positives with placebos like normal tests do...) and were virtually impossible to cause psychological or physical damage to the subject, and that the test is explained to them afterwards, then unconsensual tests should be considered ok, though erring on the gray of morality.

Yes. Death row inmates that are only hours away from being executed anyways. The odds of finding them innocent of their crime in that time frame is incredibly small.

No, I don't believe so. But, I believe they might bend the rules on what you call "Human."

What if you cloned or created an entire Human internal system but not the brain? Kept it alive mechanically? Tested on it? Created synthetic organs and kept them going on their own and ran tests on them? After all, they're only a few steps away from figuring out how to grow independant organs.

So, while you could call a set of organs or even an entire body "Human," without the brain involved, at that point, what do you call that?

With disregard of morals and such, it can be justified