Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is acceptance.
For the purpose of the debate, assume the death penalty is being used against murderers (not counting accidental murders) and assume the criminal justice system is perfect (no one is wrongly found guilty in court).
Death row - a prison block or section for prisoners sentenced to death.
Inmates - a person confined to an institution such as a prison or hospital.
Should - used to indicate what is probable.
Be - occur; take place.
Used - take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ.
Because death row inmates are going to die anyways we should use them for scientific or medical testing where the patients are at risk of dying.
There. I just provided a reason of why "Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent." Con can choose to rebut that and we can spend the remaining rounds debating the topic as originally intended or Con can attempt to show why her provided definitions of terms must be accepted.
Yes, I accepted the resolution "Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent", but you never defined any of the terms. If you don't define them, then I'm allowed to. So technically you didn't lay out the debate fully. All you said in the first round that acceptance is the round and you said hypothetical what if scenarios. You never stated any rules so as your opponent, I'm allowed to set rules and define terms. Having clarity is good for both me, you, and readers. My terms don't change the way the debate can be interpreted, all they do is provide clarity.
Anyway, let's go to the real rebuttal. All my opponent says is that the death row inmates are going to die anyway so we might as well use them in tests that can kill them. This logic is terribly flawed, as we're all going to die at some point, whether we're death row inmates or not.
I'll plug in a different group of people into this argument and we can elaborate on that. "Because the elderly are going to die anyways we should use them for scientific or medical testing where the patients are at risk of dying." That sounds absolutely terrible, right? It's no different for death row. This is just a bare assertion. There's absolutely no evidence to support your argument.
Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's defense. In Round 3, I shall provide my opening statements.
DBA10 forfeited this round.
Though my opponent has forfeited, I'll post my arguments anyway.
(Note: Point A is mostly taken from a previous debate on the death penalty. You can find it here: http://www.debate.org...)
A. Our Unalienable Rights
In The Declaration of Independence, we see this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." 
According to The Declaration of Independence, we are born with unalienable rights and we must secure these rights. One of those rights happen to be life. My opponent says that experiments should be used on death row inmates, even if they're at a risk of dying. This destroys the entire concept of unalienable rights.
"'Unalienable rights' are ours to keep, by virtue of our Creator. So said Thomas Jefferson through the Declaration of Independence..." 
The right to life may not be taken away, like my opponent suggested.
B. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
The Eighth Amendment of The Constitution forbids the usage of cruel and unusual punishment. Case in point:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." 
Performing human guinea pig like experiments on inmates goes against this, especially if you don't get the consent of the victim, but that is where my next point comes in.
C. Informed Consent and Other Requirements of Human Ethics
According to The Belmont Report from the Office for Human Research Protections, this type of experimentation goes against human ethics.
"Informed Consent. -- Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied." 
But this isn't the only example.
"Voluntariness. -- An agreement to participate in research constitutes a valid consent only if voluntarily given. This element of informed consent requires conditions free of coercion and undue influence. Coercion occurs when an overt threat of harm is intentionally presented by one person to another in order to obtain compliance. Undue influence, by contrast, occurs through an offer of an excessive, unwarranted, inappropriate or improper reward or other overture in order to obtain compliance. Also, inducements that would ordinarily be acceptable may become undue influences if the subject is especially vulnerable." 
Death row inmates wouldn't have the option to volunteer for this position, they'd just be thrust into it without explanation. And one more example to really top it off:
"Information. -- Most codes of research establish specific items for disclosure intended to assure that subjects are given sufficient information. These items generally include: the research procedure, their purposes, risks and anticipated benefits, alternative procedures (where therapy is involved), and a statement offering the subject the opportunity to ask questions and to withdraw at any time from the research. Additional items have been proposed, including how subjects are selected, the person responsible for the research, etc." 
All of these connect with the consent and information given to the inmates. Overall, it's against human ethics to perform experiments on death row inmates without informed consent, voluntariness, or information on the research.
Those are just three reasons why death row inmates shouldn't be used in medical or scientific experimentation without the consent of the inmate. Thank you.
DBA10 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.