, Please 
Find content
Male
Display name history
contactskn, on 25 January 2011 - 05:27 AM, said:
Dear friend committing a crime may be due to the mental state of a fraction of second some times and just due to this fact what I think is one should not be treated as if he or she is not a human.
Dear friend, nowhere did I say that anyone should not be treated as a human.
Iniyila, on 25 January 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:
they are testing their products (anything not only related to health care) on people of poor countries, this is a way better than testing it on their peoples even if they are in prison.
I beg to differ. These drugs should help alleviate a patient's condition and, in that respect, everyone has the right to it. However, when the aforementioned drugs also carry a risk of side-effects, I should think prisoners are more deserving of this chance. I don't think being poor ever makes anyone more deserving of an adverse medical reaction.
Iniyila, on 25 January 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:
if we want to test a drug or even a product, then we should go for other countries prisons first not our one. This is how a government can respect its peoples, and this is what they are doing in modern countries (when i say modern countries don't think of united states because there is something else going on because they have many people from different countries in each state which makes thing a little different, think of europian countries like England or Germany).
This is something I would also beg to differ on. In my point of view, human rights should be applied equally. Why should you test on prisoners of someone else's countries when you have prisoners available in your own? When you talk of how a government respects its own people, should that entail disrespecting everyone else?
Iniyila, on 25 January 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:
if something is completely perfect then why it needs a testing ? so when they test a drug on a person, they are thinking of its side effects more than its effectiveness in curing so i do not recommend testing a drug on one of my compatriots. i can see many peoples in the jails because of car accidents which has cause to some people deaths and can not pay the compensation, so how we can test something on a person that is in jail because of a car accident ? all of persons that are in prisons are not killers so you should not think of they deserving to be subjects of some factories drugs.
No drug is "perfect", heck, even paracetamol can have side effects. I think the question is rather meaningless, after all, that IS the point of testing: finding out whether a drug has other side effects that have not been observed from animal testing. And I think it's pretty racist to say something along the lines of "I think <<procedure>> is dangerous so I will not recommend it to my countrymen but it's okay if they do it to other countries" Really, I'm sorry if anyone gets offended but I think that's a pretty backward manner of thinking.
nirvaman, on 25 January 2011 - 11:31 PM, said:
I don't like the idea , i even don't like the idea of testing drogs on animals , it's not because i'm veterinarian , but it's a principle , so conducting pharmaceutical testing on prisonners will not fix the problem! because one day they "prisonners" will do their time and go outside and then they will be sick because of the medecine and we will be obliged to treat them.
Thank you for your insight; I'm pretty sure you would make an impeccable forecaster or fortuneteller. For the life of me, I have no idea how you are absolutely sure that any prisoner testing a drug WILL get sick. I am amazed at how you perceived that there is absolutely no chance that the drug will work with no or minimal adverse effects. And even when I said pharmaceutical testing on animals is a completely different issue altogether, I really do appreciate that you still persisted in bringing it up.
nirvaman, on 25 January 2011 - 11:31 PM, said:
Another idea ,is to test pesticide and poisons on people convicted of murder, and serial killer, so instead of using gas chamber "gas is expensive those days", we can test those products on them till they die
Yeah... well, you see, my idea was trying to save lives while yours was focused on inflicting unnecessary pain and prolonging the agony of the process of dying. Thanks for the notion, though.
anwiii, on 04 February 2011 - 10:54 PM, said:
well first of all, you guys have a high crime rate because the average person's income per day equals the price of a happy meal. so if you want to enjoy a steak or something, you're gonna have to rob someone.
Thank you for keeping an open mind. I'm quite positive we have very few murderers, arsonists, prostitutes, rapists, drug lords and terrorists here. Yeah... the criminal underground here is a thieving guild like that... yeah...
anwiii, on 04 February 2011 - 10:54 PM, said:
i am against reducing sentences if people agree to testing on themselves. they did a crime and they have to pay for that crime. i am not against testing on humans IF humans agree to testing. what i do think that should happen if they ever implement testing on humans in prison or jail is that they should be allowed extra amenities including their own cells. they should also be paid if they are willing to sacrifice themselves.
You raised a good point and I agree. I must admit, I have never thought of it in that respect. I do suppose reducing their sentence is rather unfair to their victims. (Sorry, just for this line, I do genuinely agree with the quoted text; I'm not being sarcastic)
anwiii, on 04 February 2011 - 10:54 PM, said:
i know you eat dog in the Philippines but that is beside the point.
Yes, I know it's beside the point too, which makes me wonder why it was brought up in the first place.
