Medical Experiments on Humans

>allegedly
nvm it's confirmed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

If it can be fatal then it's always wrong and should not be done in any case. If it's not fatal it should only be done voluntarily.

There are some things you just wouldnt know until you tried them. That said, 731 and Mengele pushed the envelope quite a bit.
I think it comes down to your personal (and by law justifiable) definition of what a human is.
Perhaps an asian/pow/untermensch is but an object and anything goes, etc.

Attached: 1521773990760.jpg (1920x1080, 681K)

>If it can be fatal
Life ends eventually. Is it so wrong to end it shortly to extend other's? Would it be just as wrong or more if this was a human's head instead?

youtube.com/watch?v=KhzEMJHQt2I

Attached: Experiment1940.jpg (640x480, 153K)

>what are your toughts on humans being experimented on?
Humans should only ever be experimented on under their own explicit signed consent. The experiment subject must be lucid and of age and not under psychoactive substances when signing the form. The subject retains the right to TERMINATE the experiment at any time and it is the experimenters who must adapt to the possibility of experiment interruption. Failure to afford experiment subjects with these rights results in the experimenters being tried as criminals.
Research institutions and medical centres may apply for research grants handed out by the government for "research of merit to medicine and biology" in exchange of having the entire process supervised by an ethics committee and medical staff team.

thats why i suggest deathrow inmates. Otherwise its a waste

I like you Portugal

Attached: grand_printer_194094083.jpg (1996x1188, 517K)

could a human in this state think and be concious? or its just like nerves moving after you cut them?

The human would be conscious but either in pain or intense fear or more likely both.

Attached: prolificactor.jpg (960x814, 159K)

Disincentives institutions from using it for abuse while simultaneously allowing humam experimentation and promoting due process/traceable work.
Also covers everyone's ass legally.

>Humans should only ever be experimented on under their own explicit signed consent.
Sometimes there's a time frame and you just can't wait years for there to come somebody healthy and throw themselves away.

>The experiment subject must be lucid and of age and not under psychoactive substances when signing the form.
Can still be blackmailed, e.g having their family threatened. Wouldn't surprise me if the government starts taxing everyone based on how many skips they had in their generations for experimentation volunteering.

>he subject retains the right to TERMINATE the experiment at any time and it is the experimenters who must adapt to the possibility of experiment interruption
Then the chance nothing will be learned is even greater than before it. You can't just abort at one point, either go through with it or don't even begin.

>Failure to afford experiment subjects with these rights results in the experimenters being tried as criminals.
Might as well just leave human experimentation taboo and outlawed because who'd bother?

>Research institutions and medical centres may apply for research grants handed out by the government for "research of merit to medicine and biology" in exchange of having the entire process supervised by an ethics committee and medical staff team.
Bad again, a committee could be biased against sectors of research if there's a majority like that in them.

hows about you just now?

Yes it is because one person's life is not worth more than other people's lives.

I'm against the death penalty in general but if you're keeping the death penalty then you could ask deathrow inmates (keep it voluntary) but it should not be financially compensated.

You'd slip into a hypnagogic state and hallucinate because your body interprets your condition as being under sleep paralysis.

Of course but reconnecting the head would prove to be quite difficult if not impossible.
There's probably a lesser stinging from the wound but it could be ignored if it's moisturized or cauterized.

Decapitation victims on the other hand probably experience hell because it's different to have your head hacked off than surgically removed.

also dry throat/nose

this

so your conclusion would be that it is preferable we have involuntary human experimentation? or none at all?
I doubt that the governme would blackmail when outright force is what they have a monopoly on, you're basically saying that if we had voluntary experimentation, the gov would try to make it involuntary. I don't see the reason why.
You always learn something with an experiment. What kind of human experiments are you even thinking about that make people suffer so much they would most definitely want to quit it?
I'd agree that a (((committee))) isn't a very effective tool. Create a set of well defined guidelines in which the subject's approval is fundamental, else let the ethical decisions made in each experiment be discussed in parliament.

Horrible and never justified, it should only be done on nonhumans genetically similar to us like mice and niggers.

We can use illegal immigrant too.

>Sometimes there's a time frame and you just can't wait years for there to come somebody healthy and throw themselves away.
If you have a strict time frame, you're not conducting research, you're running a business.
>Can still be blackmailed, e.g having their family threatened. Wouldn't surprise me if the government starts taxing everyone based on how many skips they had in their generations for experimentation volunteering.
This is true for literally everything. Saying "what if your scenario turns tyrant because humans are cunts" is a non-argument. What you described is a tyrannical government and is doomed to fall. If you shit all over your people, they will get you beheaded.
>Then the chance nothing will be learned is even greater than before it. You can't just abort at one point, either go through with it or don't even begin.
Perfect. It incentivizes only legitimate research with acceptable conditions and fair payment. The objective of any non brainlet is to promote an agreement attractive to both institution and volunteer. If your objective is to torture people and do no research, then I can see how this is a problem.
>Bad again, a committee could be biased against sectors of research if there's a majority like that in them.
Anything can be biased, this is a non-argument as it addresses potential misuse by humans, you're not criticising the system.

Your answers were blurted out, not thought out. The objective isn't to deny research nor torture volunteers, that's retarded and no one will listen to your ideas. Drop the highschool mentality and be more libertarian in regards to consent and conservative economically.

Attached: 1523105782411.jpg (275x275, 15K)

Attached: 1545103957826.jpg (833x925, 157K)

what if the person spends time in this state and psychologists kinda try to help him. Could the person potentialy live (if body trasnplant isnt an option) a "brain in jar" type of life? would the lack of food and water affect him?? so many cuestions

Attached: intrigued.jpg (653x524, 74K)

>so your conclusion would be that it is preferable we have involuntary human experimentation? or none at all?
Involuntarily, and it should always be illegal with the parties hiding, supporting or behind it being liable to punishment by the law if they e.g intentionally or un-intentionally killed or kidnapped someone.

This harshness would filter and allow only the most dedicated type of people to go with it. If the research yields any results or if they even go outside the lab is all down to factors that are hard to calculate much less take full control of.

>I don't see the reason why.
Propaganda.

>What kind of human experiments are you even thinking about that make people suffer so much they would most definitely want to quit it?
Live dissections, mental/probing probing and many more. You'd be surprised but the human body even though extensively analyzed is still a mystery. I believe we've only ever skimmed the surface.

>Create a set of well defined guidelines in which the subject's approval is fundamental, else let the ethical decisions made in each experiment be discussed in parliament.
Or at least a way to increase the chance if someone were to be successful, their research won't just end up getting destroyed. It falling into any hands is better than nobodies, no matter what it's about.

ofc it's illegal only if they're caught in the first place.

oops forgot pic

Attached: magnets turn you into a liberal lol.png (500x593, 123K)

>would the lack of food and water affect him??
Yes, of course the person will die. It's possible to keep a human alive hooked up to machinery but you need more than the head. Im pretty sure liver and kidneys are still needed for metabolic regulation.