There is nothing wrong with using low income and homeless people for drug testing.
Debate Rounds (3)
However when it comes to the testing of drugs on lower socioeconomic groups in no way did I say that they should be forced as the unfortunate people of Germany were to do. What I stated was that "What is wrong with using them?". In this I mean why should we prohibit them from having the opportunity in participating in this line of "work" should they choose? As I previously stated the administrators of these tests are providing an opportunity for these individuals. It is often a fact that these lower socioeconomic groups struggle to find work that gives them a suitable living wage in which they can seek to improve their situation by maintaining or obtaining permanent housing, better employment if they so choose, better medical/dental care, etc. These things are/can be very difficult to obtain from social welfare programs, yet easily obtained by ones self if given the appropriate monetary resources. What is more is that by not doing this we drastically limit ourselves in the field of medical advancements. With the demand for top rate medical care in societies today this testing will inevitably have to take place. This is not a form of degradation but more of a form of opportunity should people choose to use it. It is also important to note that lower socioeconomic status is not something that someone is always in for the duration of their lives. College students are typically a subgroup within this status and another subgroup can also include people that have been laid of due to economic down turn and/or out sourcing of ones job.
Now concerning your respectful recommendation for a proper debate topic, to this I say thank you for your recommendation. However I would like to say that there is no such thing as a proper debate topic, it is merely an illusion. Any and all topics are acceptable debate topics, now with that being said there maybe topics in which societies/individuals have declared taboo.
As for you statement " you"re human so wanna be tested on??", we have all been tested on. From the our earliest moments in life until we die we are medically tested on. When infants we are given immunization shots which if we have a negative reaction to the results are written down and submitted in a various forms to other doctors. When we are older anytime that we are sick with something as simple as the flu to something as complex as cancer or aids we are tested on in the from of treatments both proved and experimental.
With all this being said I look forward to your next response.
Today, drugs are tested on lab animals such as rats to make sure its okay for human use. After the testing is complete, the people that need the drug must apply through a government approved consent form which at this point, the BENEFITS outweigh the COSTS. An important point to note is that those that apply, come from differnet socioeconomic backgrounds.
If they test on the homeless or anyone right away without having done prior testing, things will work oppositely when the COSTS outweigh the BENEFITS which according to medical law, is unethical. Instead of specifically saying the homeless people should be tested on, why not include everyone else? If you think about it, that can be more beneficial and less discriminatory.
But lets clear something up, what kind of testing are you talking about that requires homeless people to be tested on? Does this testing "cure" homelessness? No, because the only thing that cures homelessness is proper guidance and the positive attitude of inclusiveness. The only reason why we have homeless today is because governments take advantage of the homeless people's situation. If we cured homelessness, then charities, welfare systems, social services, shelters and most churches will become extinct. If all these homeless taken care of, then it woukd lessen the chance of others for positions in the workplace. Therefore homelessness is a business to begin with. Our world needs to learn that, in a nation, family or team, the failure of one is the failure of all, but the success of all is one step closer to perfection.
I also noticed that you completely disregarded the movie "the Purge" that I used as a valid example where it's central theme is to have society (rich people) take advantage of the people in lower socioeconomic classes for their personal gains, gradually eliminating them.
Please take some time to watch the movie and have a better understanding of what it means to target the homeless.
You are correct that drugs are first tested on animals and after that they begin human trials. These trials are comprised of a variety of subjects these subjects are/ can be paid for this. The FDA in most cases does provide this consent for the test to take place. I did not say anything about changing this process. Merely what was wrong with using people (in this case low income and homeless) should they want to participate.
In regards to socioeconomic backgrounds it can be an option for individuals to whom wish to utilize testing as a means of income. As income it can provide a means of financial backing that allows for the acquisition of housing, preventing homelessness etc.
Your statements about curing homelessness are very interesting and perhaps something we can start another debate on if you would like.
Also as for the movie, I have not seen it but I have read the summary. It would seem that you are using it to support a slippery slope form of argument?
Like always I look forward to your response.
persianimmortal forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.