The Instigator
The_Coon_and_Friends
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
persianimmortal
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is nothing wrong with using low income and homeless people for drug testing.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 331 times Debate No: 81965
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

The_Coon_and_Friends

Pro

What is wrong with using lower income and homeless people for drug testing? In areas where this is predominately done, these two groups struggle to find any form of employment. In most inpatient trials participants are given places to stay, food, access to many basic commodities we take for granted TV, showers, etc. Participants can also receive up to $6,000 per study which if managed properly can help some leave homelessness and others prevent homelessness. These people also rather than simply using societal resources are now able to contribute to society by at least helping to contribute to faster medical developments something that all of society is more than happy to take full advantage of.
persianimmortal

Con

Listen, I'm sure you're a swell Lad or Lady but will gladly defend the rights of my fellow earthlings by happily opening this debate with the following: "Are you out of your damn mind?" Allow me to justify my usage of that phrase. Throughout history, humans have been the subject of various horrors and drug testing was one of them. Prior to the birth of concrete laws, the instigators of such heinous crimes were imprisoned or executed before a firing squad. You want proof? Go read about a 6 year segment in human history where a group humans were labelled as "inferior" and subject to a variety of tests due to their affiliation with a certain belief system, Judaism. In modern times, such actions fall under the category of persecution and inhumane. For the Jews they were forced into that situation, their title as human was stripped from them and their dignity along with it. However for us, we live in a time of justice and law, where man's actions are judged before a court system who knows no tolerance for such "thin-ice" actions. To make it "okay" as you put it, to test on human subjects requires informed consent, where the individuals are notified why the test is being done, the risks and benefits, and the rights they have as research subjects. The individuals are then pre-tested for medical conditions and other things before the actual testing can begin. I see no problem with that, keeping the human social status as general. But what worries me, is that you want be able to separate the the rich from the poor, the fortunate from the unfortunate, and the needy from the greedy, and to test on the lesser of the 2. In fact what's worse than the situation of the Jews, is paying the individuals and making them confortable with the idea that their life is worth 4 digits on a piece of 180mm x 87mm paper, handled to them by a dude who couldn't even give a hoot for what happens to the individual. I respectfully recommend proper debate subjects than the degredation of a species that can progress and develop a better mentality than this. Cheers. (Note: watch the movie "The Purge" for more information.) You want to advance a large group of people by damaging a smaller group of disadvantaged people. If you're agreed with it, then be prepared to see medicines bottles with a symbol of a stickman saying it's human tested. This isn't humanity. You're sugarcoating the cruelty that will be inflicted on them with tangible things such as TV, housing and money. It's humiliation not human. You're agreeing to degrade someone lower than what society is already degraded them to.....you're human so wanna be tested on??
Debate Round No. 1
The_Coon_and_Friends

Pro

Persianimmortal, I appreciate your response. In regards to your response, the history of the world has been a dark and troubling one when it comes to drug testing/ eugenics preformed on people during the time of Nazi Germany. However I think it is important to note that these tests were supported by heads of state all over the world to include leaders from the Allied Powers. This support was not only verbal but also financial. It was not until Hitler started his blitzkrieg across Europe that this public opinion began to change and anti-German/ Hitler Propaganda began to flow.

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.
persianimmortal

Con

Thank you for your previous comment :) Earlier, you stated, " the history of the world is dark", so I ask you, why should we bring that darkness back? Earlier you stated, "what is wrong with using them", talking about them as if they were nothing more than lab rats. Instead of encouraging them to go and find proper jobs to support themselves and their families, you are offering them an avenue for fast money concerning the use and abuse of their bodies. Sound familiar? So lets just call this "encouragement for medical prostitution". What happens when these people of low economic status refuse to be experimented on? At that point will it be forced onto them? Or will the rich people apply? I think not because they are the ones conducting those experiments.

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.

Thanks :)
Debate Round No. 2
The_Coon_and_Friends

Pro

When I said the words "using them" it was a generic term for referring to the parties collectively. Yet again I have never stated anything saying these people are/ will be forced to participate in these tests. Having the option to participate in drug testing is not encouragement of medical prostitution but leaving avenues open for any person to participate in should they want.

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

Con

persianimmortal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by persianimmortal 1 year ago
persianimmortal
I apologize but the second "earlier" I wrote in the first paragraph, I meant for it to be "You also".
My bad. #vivadebating
Posted by persianimmortal 1 year ago
persianimmortal
I apologize for delaying the response. I wrote my last midterm today and I will reply to your arguement :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.