Why is it unethical to incentivize terminally ill / death row inmate volunteering for human experimentation?

[pianistclare]

This makes me think you have not read anything in this thread, or else you simply don’t know what the Nazis did.

The Nazis did not obtain informed consent, did not give a choice, did not request volunteers, did not treat them as people, did not give them compensation, etc. Really, your argument is like saying oranges and apples are the same because they’re both fruit and both sold at supermarkets. Yeah, both scenarios involve experiments, but they’re otherwise completely different.

But the result is the same no? That’s where the ethics come in.

 

[graciew]

But the result is the same no? That’s where the ethics come in.

I am glad you can bring ethics onto the table.
In this case,it is difficult for me to go beyond the reality we are living at home.

 

[808Catholic]

There is no less Iife in terminally ill person than in any of us.
Jesus struggled to live on the Cross,to breathe…
Was He any less Jesus in those last minutes where those Hands that had healed and those Feet that had walked for us were nailed?

Good point.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m still hoping for an answer to my questions. So far people have given their personal reactions to the proposed idea, but no one has explained why offering incentives for volunteers for hazardous experiments is wrong. (Again, of course there would be a full explanation so as to get informed consent.) I suppose the answer has to do with human dignity and impaired judgment: Somehow it hurts human dignity to volunteer for an experiment that will cause some degree of harm to one’s body? Somehow offering a reward will impair the volunteer’s judgment and consequently interfere with free consent?

These are the answers I have brainstormed, but I am not really sure how we can be sure offering a reward impairs judgment, or how human dignity is hurt by someone volunteering to suffer for science. You could just as well make the same argument about military service, that it harms human dignity to volunteer to get yourself hurt for the sake of others, e.g. jumping on a grenade to save others. But for military service, even if the military is being used by a corrupt nation to secure oil, we laud their self-sacrifice. Why is the same not true for scientific knowledge leading to cancer cures? And of course the military also offers incentives and rewards to procure volunteers (payment, career, retirement) – perhaps the military service analogy is more apropos than I thought. Perhaps military recruitment is just as immoral as recruiting would be for these experiments. The only difference is certainty of being harmed, but given the rate at which soldiers suffer from explosions, perhaps the difference in certainty is rather small.

I think the reason that the initial reaction is of revulsion is that this idea is ignorant of basic Catholic theology and in my opinion basic humanity. Or the oft over used “natural law” That we are to protect and defend life from it’s conception to it’s natural end. This is why we do not support suicide Euthanasia Abortion and even people harming their own bodies voluntarily or for money. That consent is given changes none of that. And ignores the very definition of the “Dignity of Human LIfe”

 

[ethereality]

The experimenter would be sinning by committing an act harmful to an innocent human being.

Harmful acts are always sinful acts? This is the conclusion of an argument that I haven’t yet seen you make yet, namely, that such harm would be a sin: We used to think the same about surgery for this reason, and even anatomical dissection of corpses to obtain medical knowledge. If you do intend to say that harming an innocent person is always wrong, then I think you must denounce surgery as people used to, because it is hurting the person (literally cutting him open, severing tissue), and we know we cannot do evil that good may come from it: The end result of cutting the person open is to do some operation once he’s cut open (removing harmful tissue, or setting some bone, inserting a stent, etc), but clearly this is a separate action that occurs after that initial action (we must first cut him open before we do whatever medical procedure we have in mind). Of course it takes time after a surgery for the person to recover and to feel better – literally, he must recover from the harm that was done to him by cutting him open, etc. I understand that sometimes they even break bones, e.g. to open up the rib cage to access the heart.

So if harming someone is always wrong, as you implied with your post, then you must be against much modern health care. If harming someone is not always wrong, then you must get into the details and explain …

Posing another question, for another example of such detail, how do you know the principle of double effect does not apply? Namely, we (both volunteer and scientist) want to do the good act of collecting data for the future protection of people, but this is done together with the undesired yet unavoidable act of causing damage to some healthy tissue. This is another argument you’ve neglected to consider. If you’re not familiar with the principle of double effect, see some “Catholic Answers LIVE” podcasts, either prolife with Trent Horn discussing ectopic pregnancies, or the bioethics shows, where it tends to come up fairly often. Or you might search on the site here, etc.

 

[ethereality]

But the result is the same no? That’s where the ethics come in.

No, the ethics come in before the result, namely, regarding the way one gets to the result. You seem to be “missing the forest for the trees”: The result does not determine the morality of an act. Do you listen to Trent Horn on “Catholic Answers Live”? He gives – I think it’s him, anyway, and not Tim Staples – this analogy about contraception to demonstrate how the act matters, not only the end result. ‘Suppose your grandmother is in the final stages of her life, and you’re caring for her. You could wait for her to die, or you could kill her. The end result is the same, dead grandma, but clearly the actions involved make all the difference.’ (Applied to contraception, likewise, waiting for a period of infertility is different from deliberately making the conjugal act infertile.)

Moreover, the result is not the same! We’re not even talking about the same experiments!

 

[ethereality]

we do not support …] people harming their own bodies voluntarily…] That consent is given changes none of that. And ignores the very definition of the “Dignity of Human LIfe”

So you oppose organ donation, e.g. blood donation, or if a relative needs a kidney? Such donations are actions that harm one’s body. There are other examples of things we do routinely that harm our bodies – even exercise like going to the gym to lift weights. (Muscles get larger as a consequence of us tearing their fibers through weightlifting so that when they repair themselves they lay down more fiber, hence the “growth” we observe.) If you’re against harming one’s own body, then are you consistent and against all actions that harm one’s body? No alcohol (even a little bit is still poison; the ‘tipsy’ feeling – “I’m not drunk, just tipsy” – is the impairment of your body through a small amount of poison; being drunk is just more of the same), of course no cigarettes or sun tans, no weight-lifting at the gym, no blood donation or kidney donation, etc.

Literally, what you’ve said doesn’t make much sense, because every act of love is self-sacrificial, and self-sacrifice hurts us. One can look at even simple acts of parenting: When the mother breastfeeds, calcium is taken from her bones and given to the infant – her body is broken down and given to the baby (this hurts her!) and she must replenish her body afterward; or the sleep the parents voluntarily give up to care for their baby (lack of sleep hurts the brain), etc. One could likewise discuss pregnancy itself, and what happens to the mother’s body (the fetus, technically speaking – please disregard the negative connotation the following word has – can be classified as a parasite, given its function on the mother’s body).

So if you are to say we must not volunteer to hurt ourselves, then you are saying we must not live Christian lives, but instead hedonistic self-centered lives (where we only try to help ourselves and avoid pain). But I get what you’re saying more generally, that we can’t mutilate our bodies, for example. But it appears the prohibition on hurting ourselves is not absolute – as another example, we allow ear piercings (literally poking holes in ourselves!), which is even Biblical (as I recall, commanded by Moses in the case of a slave who wishes to continue working for his master), and that’s simply for fashion, not for the good of humanity. And I’ve already mentioned military service, where hurting ourselves can be regarded as heroism (e.g. jumping on a grenade to save fellow soldiers).

 

[Fixed_Gauge]

It looks like most of the comments seem to focus on the “terminally ill” suggestion, but I’m curious to see what people think about OP’s other option.

Unlike the terminally ill patients, the death row inmates have forfeited their right to their life (and therein, bodily integrity) due to the dangers they pose to society. Now, first assume you believe that the death penalty is ethical, since I know there is still a considerable amount of debate on this matter. Now, consider the following argument:

-Death Row Inmates will be killed to benefit society
-Their bodies will experience death at some point in the near future, which is the worst trauma a human body can experience
-If these prisoners will have serious harm submitted to their bodies for the good of society, why not subject them to smaller traumas (i.e. dangerous experimentation), also for the good of society?

Do you think this is a valid line of thinking? It seems to have much potential in terms of possible medical or biological breakthroughs, which might help the populace even more than would the prisoner’s death

 

[St_Francis]

My point was not the nature of the sin as I assumed you would understand that, but that the experimenter would be committing a sin in the experiment–the issue is not with consent or the situation of the person to be experimented on, but the fact that what would be happening would be a sin on the part of the experimenter.

Harming innocent people without a proportionate reason for doing so would be the sin. Repairing a “broken” body would be proportionate. Performing an experiment which would damge the person’s body, even for the sake of others, would not be proportionate.

Harmful acts are always sinful acts? This is the conclusion of an argument that I haven’t yet seen you make yet, namely, that such harm would be a sin: We used to think the same about surgery for this reason, and even anatomical dissection of corpses to obtain medical knowledge. If you do intend to say that harming an innocent person is always wrong, then I think you must denounce surgery as people used to, because it is hurting the person (literally cutting him open, severing tissue), and we know we cannot do evil that good may come from it: The end result of cutting the person open is to do some operation once he’s cut open (removing harmful tissue, or setting some bone, inserting a stent, etc), but clearly this is a separate action that occurs after that initial action (we must first cut him open before we do whatever medical procedure we have in mind). Of course it takes time after a surgery for the person to recover and to feel better – literally, he must recover from the harm that was done to him by cutting him open, etc. I understand that sometimes they even break bones, e.g. to open up the rib cage to access the heart.

So if harming someone is always wrong, as you implied with your post, then you must be against much modern health care. If harming someone is not always wrong, then you must get into the details and explain …

Posing another question, for another example of such detail, how do you know the principle of double effect does not apply? Namely, we (both volunteer and scientist) want to do the good act of collecting data for the future protection of people, but this is done together with the undesired yet unavoidable act of causing damage to some healthy tissue. This is another argument you’ve neglected to consider. If you’re not familiar with the principle of double effect, see some “Catholic Answers LIVE” podcasts, either prolife with Trent Horn discussing ectopic pregnancies, or the bioethics shows, where it tends to come up fairly often. Or you might search on the site here, etc.

 

[808Catholic]

It looks like most of the comments seem to focus on the “terminally ill” suggestion, but I’m curious to see what people think about OP’s other option.

Unlike the terminally ill patients, the death row inmates have forfeited their right to their life (and therein, bodily integrity) due to the dangers they pose to society. Now, first assume you believe that the death penalty is ethical, since I know there is still a considerable amount of debate on this matter. Now, consider the following argument:

-Death Row Inmates will be killed to benefit society
-Their bodies will experience death at some point in the near future, which is the worst trauma a human body can experience
-If these prisoners will have serious harm submitted to their bodies for the good of society, why not subject them to smaller traumas (i.e. dangerous experimentation), also for the good of society?

Do you think this is a valid line of thinking? It seems to have much potential in terms of possible medical or biological breakthroughs, which might help the populace even more than would the prisoner’s death

Volunteering to be the subject of an experiment where your death is LIKELY is the same as suicide which is a sin. Just because a prisoner will die is not reason to say he/she should be allowed to die for the good of everyone else. We will all die so the same logic could be applied to us. :tsktsk:

 

[hu324b]

So take people (terminally ill ) who are already in emotional distress and convince them to be test rats by offering them some material reward - hmmmm thats just down right cruel I would consider anyone who would do this a monster - it bad enough healthy people die being lab rats for pharmaceutical companys and guess where they do it - in the slums of India and places like that where people don’t know any better and are desperate for money - its already happening and they do it for peanuts because they are in a hopeless situation.

I guess you figure these people have no value - you couldn’t be more wrong - even the prisoners on death row.

How do I know - I have been a hospice volunteer for over twenty years - and each person is precious no matter what they have done in their lives - I find this post absolutely shocking and just the kind of thing we don’t need in this world

 

[ethereality]

It looks like most of the comments seem to focus on the “terminally ill” suggestion, but I’m curious to see what people think about OP’s other option.

Just for the record, in case anyone becomes confused, Gauge proceeds to discuss something different from my ‘other option’.

Unlike the terminally ill patients, the death row inmates have forfeited their right to their life (and therein, bodily integrity) due to the dangers they pose to society.

This is false. Right to life and bodily integrity are two separate rights. That is why we must treat prisoners humanely: We recognize they continue having human dignity because they continue being human. That is why my question concerns offering incentives for volunteers, rather than subjecting non-consenting people to trials as you suggest. (The right to bodily integrity also applies to animals and the environment in general, hence we can kill animals for food but not torture them, and use the environment appropriately but not pollute it.)

-Death Row Inmates will be killed to benefit society

This is false. There is no benefit derived from killing someone. Rather, they are killed as a necessary means to protect against further harm to society. (This is why the Church teaches that when societies gain the means for life imprisonment capital punishment becomes immoral.) This protection is not an actual “good”, a real benefit, because it is not known whether future harm would have occurred. (You can think of insurance as an example. Tsunami insurance doesn’t help you when you buy it, and the payment isn’t ever going to be prudent if your home isn’t in danger of a tsunami. Then, when you buy it, you’re not actually buying any actual object or service – indeed, there is a visible loss when you do so (as there is when killing someone), in this case to your pocketbook, rather than your society.)

-Their bodies will experience death at some point in the near future, which is the worst trauma a human body can experience

This is false, hence the expression “A fate worse than death,” even apart from considerations of hell. Suffering is worse than a painless death, especially under a materialist worldview.

-If these prisoners will have serious harm submitted to their bodies for the good of society, why not subject them to smaller traumas (i.e. dangerous experimentation), also for the good of society?

I have shown that the two premises involved in this question are false.

I hope this response answers your questions and clarifies the matter.

Volunteering to be the subject of an experiment where your death is LIKELY is the same as suicide which is a sin.

It’s not. Look up the definition of suicide. However, the intention can be the same, in which case the sinfulness I think would be of the same degree, yeah. (Like how natural family planning is different from contraception, but can be equally sinful if one practices it with the intention of contraception.)

 

[ethereality]

So take people (terminally ill ) who are already in emotional distress and convince them to be test rats by offering them some material reward - hmmmm thats just down right cruel

Surely it depends on the motivation. Treating a terminally ill person as an object is obviously cruel. Giving terminally ill people the opportunity to help others in a significant and lasting way while respecting their personhood is not obviously cruel. I wish you would clarify, but I don’t know if you intend to make more than an emotional response.

 

[St_Francis]

Surely it depends on the motivation. Treating a terminally ill person as an object is obviously cruel. Giving terminally ill people the opportunity to help others in a significant and lasting way while respecting their personhood is not obviously cruel. I wish you would clarify, but I don’t know if you intend to make more than an emotional response.

No, because the act contains within itself the wrongness. Having a good motive does not justify committing this act.

There are three parts to an act, and all of them have to be good for an act to be good. If one aspect of the act is bad, then the act is bad, no matter the other two circumstances.

It’s like performing an abortion to save the life of the mother: there is a good intention, bit the act is bad in itself.

 

[ethereality]

the act contains within itself the wrongness. Having a good motive does not justify committing this act.

Please stop being ambiguous! Please post more carefully! Which act? Offering an incentive to volunteer? Giving compensation for any incurred harm? Conducting an experiment of low risk? medium risk? high risk?

And, to my recollection, you still haven’t explained why whichever act you’re saying is intrinsically immoral is so – you still haven’t answered the questions I asked in my very first post.

 

[St_Francis]

Please stop being ambiguous! Please post more carefully! Which act? Offering an incentive to volunteer? Giving compensation for any incurred harm? Conducting an experiment of low risk? medium risk? high risk?

And, to my recollection, you still haven’t explained why whichever act you’re saying is intrinsically immoral is so – you still haven’t answered the questions I asked in my very first post.

Sorry about that. An experiment which has a high degree of causing harm to the human subject of the experiment would carry within itself the wrongness which makes it sinful.

Why it would be sinful is that it would causing or risking harm to another human being.

Offering any sort of incentive to get people to volunteer to be the subject of a sinful experiment would also be sinful.

A low-risk experiment is not what you have been talking about, and we do that all the time.

The way these experiments generally work is that we test in a computer model first, on animals second, and then, *having reduced the risk, *test on humans.

 

[ethereality]

Why [high risk human experimentation] would be sinful is that it would causing or risking harm to another human being.

This is not a sufficient reason, as I have already shown regarding military service and parenting, both of which cause or risk harm to the self yet are lauded as exemplary self-sacrifice. If “causing or risking harm to a human being” is sinful, then you must condemn all military service and all parenting to be consistent – and more to your argument, also those who encourage others to become parents or enlist. Please go back and read those posts.

A low-risk experiment is not what you have been talking about, and we do that all the time.

Actually, I have been including that in my considerations, i.e. everything I’ve said also applies to such cases.

 

[St_Francis]

This is not a sufficient reason, as I have already shown regarding military service and parenting, both of which cause or risk harm to the self yet are lauded as exemplary self-sacrifice. If “causing or risking harm to a human being” is sinful, then you must condemn all military service and all parenting to be consistent – and more to your argument, also those who encourage others to become parents or enlist. Please go back and read those posts.

When I do not understand a Church teaching, no matter the explanations, first I ask, as you have done, and then I pray about it.

, I have been including that in my considerations, i.e. everything I’ve said also applies to such cases.