Cancer experiments on death row inmates

Earlier today, I noticed a poster at a McDonalds warning that the fries contained Acrylamide, which was a carcinogen.

When I got home, I looked it up. Apparently, Acrylamide is a naturally-occurring chemical that may cause cancer.

The reason I say "may" is because the tests that showed cancer were in lab rats, and not humans. There is still no conclusive proof that acrylamide does or doesn't cause cancer in humans. This worried me, because I found out that many of the foods i eat contain small amounts of acrylamide, and I'm not sure whether i should change my diet to prevent cancer or not.

The idea then came to me to test acylamide out on death row inmates. For the crimes they committed, using them to test for cancer may actually save more lives than they've taken. It isn't just limited to acrylamide, they could be tested for all other kinds of cancer experiments that are dangerous to try out on people and unreliable on labrats.

What do you think about this? Is it immoral? Is it a bad idea?

 

Well...I was going to eat McDonalds later, but you just changed my mind.

I like the idea.
I'm personally a supporter of the death sentence, but if we can put them to a greater good, then let's do it.
And if they die in the process...well, they got to live longer than originally.

 

To be honest, I've eaten tons of these fries, I haven't experienced and cancer-like symptoms yet. It might just be effective on rats. I don't know.

 

I really really hope that it doesn't affect humans, because I love french fries. ;-; (although I prefer the ones from Wendy's or Burger King over McDonald's)

As for testing on death row inmates, I suppose it's a good idea, but they should at least be allowed to volunteer for it. I'm not completely sure about how I feel about the death sentence in the first place, so I'm kind of on the fence about this one. I guess that if they did find something, it'd save lives in the long run.

 

First point, OH NOES IT HAS A VERY SLIGHT CHANCE OF CAUSING CANCER WE MUST STOP INGESTING IT D:

You do realised that breathing, eating, living near granite, having parents, generally living (from background radiation), Brazil nuts, flying (that's a big one) etc. are all carcinogenic? It really pisses me off when people go AHHHH IT'S GOING TO GIVE ME CANCER! It's not, it will increase your chance by a very small amount not actually give you cancer.

/rant

As for death row inmates, I completely disagree with the death penalty but I can see the appeal of making life sentence inmates do a service to humanity. But, what if someone is later cleared? "Oh sorry mate, we treated you like a lab rat and gave you cancer because we thought you were guilty, no hard feelings k?" That isn't really going to work =/

 

Well technology and forensic evidence methods have come a very long way. More and more you see people who were falsely accused being let out but it's very seldom you see people who were recently accused turn out to be falsely accused.

 

The point stands that they could be. Nothing in this universe is absolutely certain and I'm sure there have been plenty of real cases where there is a mountain of evidence against one person and it turns out that they are innocent. The state (and therefore we) have no right to subject that person to experiments that may drastically increase their chances of getting cancer just because we think they are guilty.

 

So...say someone brutally killed four people in a convenience store and forgot that there was a security camera, and that person was put on death row. Would you still think that they shouldn't be experimented on then?

 

Lol global warming causes cancer.


Anyways,
The way I see it, consider it cruel, I don't think it's that much better to have someone locked up for life, then 50 (or even 20) years later, find out they're innocent and let them go.
We can't just say, "Sorry, mate, here's those 20 years back."

 

At least they're still alive.

@Bushido: Everyone has to be treated the same or we end up on a slippery slope. I know what you mean and how you feel but if we want a fair and democratic society this is the way it has to be. Say you go ahead with this. Then people might start to say, we could do it with other sections of society. It goes to a popular vote and suddenly all Muslims (for example, especially in the current global climate) are eligible to be experimented on. Then atheists, the unemployed etc. Anyone that society deems useless or unwanted.

Not that simple is it.

 

So long as the chance exists that an innocent man could be wrongly convicted, I'm going to say no. And if you think about it, what prisoner would agree to it, to begin with? Unless there's an very good incentive or deep down they're a good person, I doubt most of the criminals aren't going to care about the rest of the world and the benefit it could have, considering they'll be dead.

 

Prisoners, even the ones on death row, are still human.
I think a good idea would be to offer prisoners lenience on their sentences if they participate in experiments/clinical trials. After being presented by the risks of course.

 

I never said anything about them agreeing to it. We're talking about murderers here.

 

I have to agree with what Misty said. They should volunteer for it instead of being forced in to it. Sure the chances of many volunteers are low but we can't really treat a person like a lab rat without their permission.

Doesn't matter if they are murderers, alot people would consider it cruel and unusual punishment.

 

Being murdered is cruel and unusual punishment, too.

 

So people are saying they would want blood on their hands? What the state does the people do by proxy.

 

Never said that I agree with the death sentence.

 

I totally disagree...

I'm against the death penalty as it is... it's bad enough they have to die without having to die reduced to little more than a lab rat..
If you're gonna kill them, at least let them go with dignity.

No matter how messed up in the head a person could be they're still some mother's child...

 

To force someone to partake in experiments, no matter who they are or what they did is cruel and unusual. Human's rights groups would have a field day with something like that. Especially if the results of the tests caused the prisoner's harm. It doesn't look too great in the media to kill a man with cancer or another illness that was the result of an experiment he was forced to do. Even a murderer is still a human being, and doesn't deserved to be treated like an animal. I mean the Nazi's experimented on their prisoners before and during WWII. Who really wants to be compared with them?

 

I like this. It's not exactly forcing them to subject themselves to the testing, and if they were offered some sort of prisoner compensation (such as lenience or a slightly reduced sentence) they might actually do it. But to force the testing on them just because they are on death row? No.

I'm going to keep my views on the death penalty out of this one and just agree with what Crisp said.