Two drug trial men critically ill
Northwick Park Hospital
The six are being treated at Northwick Park hospital
Two men remain critically ill and four others are in a serious condition after suffering a violent reaction while taking part in a clinical drugs trial.

All are still in intensive care in Northwick Park Hospital, north-west London, after falling ill on Monday.

Myfanwy Marshall told BBC News her boyfriend's body was badly swollen and she had been told he could die.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4808836.stm

They knew the risks. I have zero sympathy for them. They thought they could get a few thousand $ for nothing & then no doubt next week they'd be pissing the cash up a wall.

Basically they were prostituting out their body for a few grand. I am sure they have earned their money and provided some useful info about the drugs they let the researchers inject them with.

It's quite common for students in the UK to enter these trials. A friend of mine did many of these trials. I always thought he was nuts to do it.

Take the pill do the time, or take the pill you may fall ill

There are risks to being the first person to ingest a new substance. If we are to have new medicines someone must test them. The way it is done now encourages those who have financial needs they can't otherwise meet to do this. It is a system that uses poor people who volunteer to test the drugs that will benifit society. I don't like this system very much, but all the alternatives I can think of are worse. We could, for example, test the drugs on convicted criminals. Another solution would be a lottery system, which would require all citizens to register and be "drafted" to test drugs. Those would both be worse than what we do now. I would love to hear a better plan if anyone has one.

I think the system in place is fine. People come forward to earn some easy cash. 99.99% of the time it is easy cash. 0.01% of the time your organs fail & you end up looking like the elephant man in a coma. It's the risk you take, these guys knew the risks. I hope they get better but it's no different than playing at the casino, the only difference is the odds are far better than roulette.

Why else do we provide first rate medical & dental care to those incarcerated for life, if not to have a ready supply of experimental human drones to practice on?

Their punishment is lack of freedom, not to be the patient of Dr Mengele.

Only making a slight joke.

There have been many drug trials over the years, many more than most of us are even aware of, right here in the U.S., and there's no telling how many are done on or off the books anywhere on the planet.

The point I'm getting at, is that we don't hear about the "side" effects of others very much ... not until long after the fact. What's made this incident so special?

I thought they used people in Africa anyway. No publicity when it goes wrong & $5 instead of $3000

I think using convicted criminals is a brilliant suggestion.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I think using convicted criminals is a brilliant suggestion.

I just want to add alittle more to this, convicted violent criminals that should have had the DP in the 1st place. Oh yeh, I help design the 1st 1000 pills or so :eek:

I say use 'em on anyone in jail convicted of a violent crime, period.

I don't care if you're only serving 10 years - you're getting the best medical experimentation money can buy.

One of the reasons you want to use willing volunteers in a drug trial, is that in addition to the regular medical testing they get during the trial, you have to be able to rely on the patient giving you truthful feedback on their state of health during the trial. Convicted criminals forced into testing a drug against thier will would be unlikely to provide much useful information.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Convicted criminals forced into testing a drug against thier will would be unlikely to provide much useful information.
Good point, but if they blow up like balloons / go into cardiac arrest / or almost die, then I don't think it matters if they say anything at all. I mean, they've already been relegated to the status of crash test dummy for the medical industry, and, as we all know, crash test dummies don't need to speak, do they?

.. or what about on death row inmates, who have no hope of parole?
It would kinda be a way for them to pay society back.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Good point, but if they blow up like balloons / go into cardiac arrest / or almost die, then I don't think it matters if they say anything at all. I mean, they've already been relegated to the status of crash test dummy for the medical industry, and, as we all know, crash test dummies don't need to speak, do they?

How about not relegating them to be ''crash test dummies'' unless they want to? Really Prae, how much can you say these things with a straight face? Is this something from your childhood?

And now back to "Uncle Adolph's Happy Hour!"

Adolph:"Guten tag, lieblings!"
Kids:"Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Kidzshow!"
Adolph:"Today we're doing an experiment children"
Kids:"YAY!"
Adolph:"How fast does a gypsie take to fry?"

*they all stand back and cackle as a giant drum of oil boils in the background, you clap along in your diapers watching on the tv*

Originally posted by Evakian
How about not relegating them to be ''crash test dummies'' unless they want to? Really Prae, how much can you say these things with a straight face? Is this something from your childhood?
What the hell are you blathering about now, Evak??? We're talking about violent criminals, not freaking gypsies. If you have a problem with making them repay their debt to society by forcing them to benefit us directly, then that's your choice, but I personally think the alternative is excellent. Actually, come to think of it, I'd give them a choice: either become a guinea pig for the medical industry, or work in a chain gang. Those who refused would be cast out of their one-bunk Hiltons to join the sodomites in total lockdown. Don't like your choices??? Then maybe you shouldn't have broken the law, asshole.

gypsies??????? They can't be violent, is this some sort of belief system :D

Originally posted by The Praetorian
[quote]We're talking about violent criminals, not freaking gypsies.

Does that suddenly give them no rights, and you recommend we go against our own Constitution (no cruel or unusual punishment) and use them as "test subjects"?

Actually, come to think of it, I'd give them a choice: either become a guinea pig for the medical industry, or work in a chain gang.

I have very little issue with using the massive prison population for public service projects, I just don't like the idea of an unwilling paitient joining a drug trial operation.

Originally posted by Evakian
Does that suddenly give them no rights, and you recommend we go against our own Constitution (no cruel or unusual punishment) and use them as "test subjects"?
Fine, but realize if you're an American citizen, and a convicted felon on top of it, then your constitutional rights have already been violated via the 15th Amendment. (Read: they don't allow you to vote.) Now tell me why this issue should be any different?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Fine, but realize if you're an American citizen, and a convicted felon on top of it, then your constitutional rights have already been violated via the 15th Amendment. (Read: they don't allow you to vote.) Now tell me why this issue should be any different?

Are you seriously suggesting that not allowing convicts to vote and violating the "cruel and unusual punishment clause" by subjecting the prison populace to medical testing are both on the same level of severity?

Hey, you were the one who brought up constitutional violations, not me, and in order to keep the argument intellectually consistent, I made that connection. "Same level" or not, it's of no consequence; it is what it is...

That aside, are you seriously suggesting that these bastards be treated with any leniency at all? In my opinion, medical testing is a PERFECT way for them to repay their debt to society. Always realize that they CHOSE to give their rights up by breaking the law in the first place.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Hey, you were the one who brought up constitutional violations, not me, and in order to keep the argument intellectually consistent, I made that connection.

And not a very good one at that.

"Same level" or not, it's of no consequence; it is what it is...

Horsehockey, then don't make the argument that we should strip them of their Constitutional protections because they are not allowed to vote.

That aside, are you seriously suggesting that these bastards be treated with any leniency at all?

I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating that prisoners, regardless of their crimes, are given protections by our Constitution that keep them from becoming guinea pigs for the latest drug.

In my opinion, medical testing is a PERFECT way for them to repay their debt to society.

And that opinion is another thing to add to the board of "Why we need to celebrate that Prae is not our supreme leader."

Always realize that they CHOSE to give their rights up by breaking the law in the first place.

But our Founding Fathers, the American public for centuries, and the rest of the highly civilized world has all put in place basic measures to protect the lives of human beings, criminals or not-you're crossing the line by involuntary drug testing in prisons.

Originally posted by Evakian
And not a very good one at that.
Just because they're not "on the same level" doesn't take anything away from the legitimacy of my observation. The question remains: who becomes the arbiter of what constitutional rights get cherry picked because some violent asshole decided to beat someone else with a tire iron? Considering the circumstances, I think my point was decent, and the comparison I made was entirely appropriate.
Originally posted by Evakian
I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating that prisoners, regardless of their crimes, are given protections by our Constitution that keep them from becoming guinea pigs for the latest drug.
And, once again - I contend that "constitutional protections" should mean nothing if you're a convicted criminal, period. Oh, and apparently I'm not alone on that, or felons wouldn't be denied any constitutional rights, would they?

Case in point.
Originally posted by Evakian
But our Founding Fathers, the American public for centuries, and the rest of the highly civilized world has all put in place basic measures to protect the lives of human beings, criminals or not-you're crossing the line by involuntary drug testing in prisons.
Look, my point is simple: you break the law, you pay. Now, in that regard, whose prison system do you think would act as a stronger deterrent: yours or mine? Whose would offer a bigger benefit to society? Whose would end up saving lives, while advancing our scientific knowledge? Gee, that's funny - I thought the same thing...

So....tell me again why my approach is morally wrong? Oh yeah, that's right.....it strips CRIMINALS of their constitutional rights.

Better phone the ACLU, Jesse. At least we know who you're fighting for.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Just because they're not "on the same level" doesn't take anything away from the legitimacy of my observation.

Your observation regards the suffrage of convicted felons, you are arguing for their bodies to be subject to experimental drugs because if you let one fly in you let them all in. It's just poor reasoning.

And, once again - I contend that "constitutional protections" should mean nothing if you're a convicted criminal, period.

Thankfully we have a Constitution full of such protections to tell you you're wrong. :)

Oh, and apparently I'm not alone on that, or felons wouldn't be denied any constitutional rights, would they?

Case in point.

No one here is favoring that they be denied nothing. And also, just because you are treating your rebuttal as a legitimate, quality counterargument doesn't make it so.

Look, my point is simple: you break the law, you pay.

They "pay" via jail time, fines, community service, and sometimes their own life. But their life is taken by controlled means of execution, fitting for their crimes--being a guinea pig and facing side effects of experimental drugs is both cruel and unusual, and not the punishment afforded them by society. The drugs benefit the private sector of companies that then sell them to buyers, there is no public service here, it is a capitalist endeavor that forces the system to bow down to corporations and endanger inmates when they could easily find willing drug test participants elsewhere.

Now, in that regard, whose prison system do you think would act as a stronger deterrent: yours or mine?

Civilizations have had crueler prisons than what you are suggesting. People could be beheaded for simple theft or disobedience to the local religious order-there was still crime. You will always have some form of crime in one way or another, making it a hell hole that stomps on human rights isn't going to do much to curb the violence. What will curb crime is a better society, a prosperous economy, and an educated generation of youth-not a totalitarian "pound-you-in-the-rump" fest.

Whose would offer a bigger benefit to society? Whose would end up saving lives, while advancing our scientific knowledge?

Prison is not a benefit to society so much as a way to keep society safe from wrongdoers and keep wrongdoers safe from society to serve out their punishment/rehabilitate, it isn't a capitalist enterprise.

And there are plenty of willing participants for drug testing outside the prisons, and even inside the prisons-try asking. If you are not willing to accept the fact that prisons should not force this on inmates, the debate is over; get out.

So....tell me again why my approach is morally wrong?

Much of what you say on these forums; your entire worldview is an approach that is morally wrong.

Better phone the ACLU, Jesse. At least we know who you're fighting for.

First of all, you don't know "who I am fighting for". And secondly, the argument all boils down to this-

Prisoners should be allowed to be given the opportunity to enter into drug testing programs out of their own volition. This guarantees they understand the risks involved in such and are fulfilling both their restitution to society and advancing medical knowledge, it also brings a level of cooperation that would otherwise be not expected.

If you cannot agree that it is not good, for the drug trials and prisoners and our legal system, then the argument is pointless.

Constitutional protections should matter especially to convicted felons, because otherwise it would be far too easy for the government to abuse its power by tossing people into prison for political reasons.

Using convicted felons for drug trials is simply an absurd idea.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Constitutional protections should matter especially to convicted felons, because otherwise it would be far too easy for the government to abuse its power by tossing people into prison for political reasons.
This is the only good argument I've seen here against mandatory clinical drug testing on felons. Good call, Nap.

Originally posted by DrewM
Using convicted felons for drug trials is simply an absurd idea.
And exactly what makes it "absurd"?

Originally posted by Evakian
Your observation regards the suffrage of convicted felons, you are arguing for their bodies to be subject to experimental drugs because if you let one fly in you let them all in. It's just poor reasoning.
No it's not; it's called being consistant, which is apparently a mysterious concept. That being said, the criminals either have rights, or they don't, but what you can't do is selectively deny certain constitutional rights while you simultaneously sing the praises of not infringing on others. In short, your argument over "severity" isn't the point. Your rights are your RIGHTS, period. You either have them, or you don't.
Originally posted by Evakian
Much of what you say on these forums; your entire worldview is an approach that is morally wrong.
Well gee, it must be nice to have such an accurate "worldview" at 18, you overly preachy, pretentious little dick.

I remember about 20 years ago, inmates on our state's death row staged a hunger strike because of poor conditions there. They claimed their rights were violated by the inhumane food, etc.
I recall what the then-governor had to say. He stated,
"These men are legally dead. They have no rights."

The hunger strike ended after a few days.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
That being said, the criminals either have rights, or they don't

Apparently allowing some rights (such as the guaranteed right to not be victim of cruel and unusual punishment by our justice system) while denying others (such as voting) is a foreign, mysterious concept.

but what you can't do is selectively deny certain constitutional rights while you simultaneously sing the praises of not infringing on others. In short, your argument over "severity" isn't the point.

Yes it is, if you think there is no difference between suffrage and subjecting their bodies to experimental drugs then you are beyond help.

Your rights are your RIGHTS, period. You either have them, or you don't.

You have freedom of speech Prae, but you don't have the freedom to run around naked in the streets. Unpleasant example of course, but still one that highlights that you still always have limited freedoms in regards to what you can do. Criminals sign away certain rights by committing their felony or misdemeanor, but they still have the protection that keeps them from being tortured or iunjured by drugs, mistreatment, and the like.

Well gee, it must be nice to have such an accurate "worldview" at 18, you overly preachy, pretentious little dick.

Well first off, I never claimed that I had an accurate, perfect, or undeniably correct worldview. Secondly, that isn't my age, and thirdly, I'm not being "overly preachy", or a "little dick", or "pretentious". I had one sentence that was directed at your preoccupation with money and disdain for human rights (both on certain issues). You're the one slandering and name-calling, and it's nice to see you not address my post but two statements.

This is the only good argument I've seen here against mandatory clinical drug testing on felons.

Despite the Constitution and the simple matter of psychology with unwilling criminals being put under the needle.

Originally posted by Evakian
Apparently allowing some rights (such as the guaranteed right to not be victim of cruel and unusual punishment by our justice system)
Oh, like getting sodomized, or stuck with a shiv in C-block is any worse then testing Eli Lilly's new cold medicine? You've gotta be kidding me. What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" when the people responsible for incarcerating them know they'll be raped, tortured, beaten, and/or killed? Think about it.

P.S. You are overly preachy, and yes, you can be very pretentious.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Oh, like getting sodomized, or stuck with a shiv in C-block is any worse then testing Eli Lilly's new cold medicine?

There is a difference, as those actions are not government sponsored actions. Think about it.

What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" when the people responsible for incarcerating them know they'll be raped, tortured, beaten, and/or killed? Think about it.

They don't know such for certain, and prison guards or the prisoners themselves will be able to help determine that.

P.S. You are overly preachy, and yes, you can be very pretentious.

Since I know you're simply being a jerk let us ignore this part altogether. Instead you ignored the enormity of my post and failed to offer any rebuttal except mention "Theyz gunna drop teh soap!". Why is it hard to understand that unless they volunteer it is not right?

Whatever.

it isn't a capitalist enterprise.

Just you wait!

Watched a BBC program this week,in it as Drew pointed out,the big drugs companys do go to the third world,India is the place were most of our everyday drugs are tested,any fatalitys are just brushed to the side,one point I did pick up on,which effects us all is,these drug trials were only lasting 1 or 2 years,were as in Europe,its ten years before they can apply to produce them.