- Sep 23, 2005
- 32,095
- 5,885
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
tall73 said: ↑
2. we humans have the right to bodily autonomy.
How do we know everyone has this as a component of their morality? For instance, the US government officials who intentionally infected people with sexually transmitted diseases in Guatemala, to study the results, didn't seem to hold the view that each person has a right to bodily autonomy.
US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s - CNN.com
Those who sterilized populations they thought were inferior, for the sake of "improving" humanity didn't seem to hold to that view.
Bodily autonomy had to be fought for by appealing to various arguments, rather than just being something that everyone subjectively holds.
Later US officials, who did not agree with what earlier US officials did, apologized because they recognized that what the earlier US officials did was morally wrong.
And they did so because they recognized moral principles beyond just each person being their own system of morality. They thought it was wrong to experiment on people without their consent.
However, those conducting the experiments didn't seem to have a problem with it. And the article notes other similar experiments funded by the NIH. But it also notes one reluctant supervisor.
Collins said the published literature contains more than 40 other U.S.-based studies "where intentional infection was carried out with what we could now consider to be completely inadequate consent in the United States."
Many of those studies were funded by the Public Health Service, he said.
But at least some people believed at the time that the experiment was flawed, according to Wellesley's Reverby, who cited this reaction to Cutler's work from his supervisor, PHS physician R.C. Arnold: "I am a bit, in fact more than a bit, leery of the experiment with insane people," Arnold said. "They can not give consent, do not know what is going on, and if some good organization got wind of the work, they would raise a lot of smoke. I think the soldiers would be best or the prisoners for they can give consent. Maybe I'm too conservative ... In the report, I see no reason to say where the work was done and the type of volunteer."
So his supervisor objected, but didn't stop him. And his supervisor admitted that he (the supervisor) might be "too conservative" insisting on consent. He seemed particularly concerned about "smoke" from "good" organizations (apparently other than the NIH which funded such things, and were perhaps less "conservative" than the supervisor).
I also referenced the example of those who thought that sterilization to "better" the human race thought they were doing right.
You seem to agree with the later politicians, and the leery, possibly too conservative supervisor, that it is wrong to experiment on people without consent, as you noted "humans" having bodily autonomy. But then, that is an absolute principle for all people, not just a self-created moral framework for each person.
So either admit that you are recognizing an absolute moral principle of bodily autonomy, and explain where it comes from, as it can't just be from your own mind if it applies to all. Or admit that there is no problem with experimenting on people, because it is just up to each person.
2. we humans have the right to bodily autonomy.
How do we know everyone has this as a component of their morality? For instance, the US government officials who intentionally infected people with sexually transmitted diseases in Guatemala, to study the results, didn't seem to hold the view that each person has a right to bodily autonomy.
US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s - CNN.com
Those who sterilized populations they thought were inferior, for the sake of "improving" humanity didn't seem to hold to that view.
Bodily autonomy had to be fought for by appealing to various arguments, rather than just being something that everyone subjectively holds.
If your source really claimed that, then why did the US apologize for it?
Later US officials, who did not agree with what earlier US officials did, apologized because they recognized that what the earlier US officials did was morally wrong.
And they did so because they recognized moral principles beyond just each person being their own system of morality. They thought it was wrong to experiment on people without their consent.
However, those conducting the experiments didn't seem to have a problem with it. And the article notes other similar experiments funded by the NIH. But it also notes one reluctant supervisor.
Collins said the published literature contains more than 40 other U.S.-based studies "where intentional infection was carried out with what we could now consider to be completely inadequate consent in the United States."
Many of those studies were funded by the Public Health Service, he said.
But at least some people believed at the time that the experiment was flawed, according to Wellesley's Reverby, who cited this reaction to Cutler's work from his supervisor, PHS physician R.C. Arnold: "I am a bit, in fact more than a bit, leery of the experiment with insane people," Arnold said. "They can not give consent, do not know what is going on, and if some good organization got wind of the work, they would raise a lot of smoke. I think the soldiers would be best or the prisoners for they can give consent. Maybe I'm too conservative ... In the report, I see no reason to say where the work was done and the type of volunteer."
So his supervisor objected, but didn't stop him. And his supervisor admitted that he (the supervisor) might be "too conservative" insisting on consent. He seemed particularly concerned about "smoke" from "good" organizations (apparently other than the NIH which funded such things, and were perhaps less "conservative" than the supervisor).
I also referenced the example of those who thought that sterilization to "better" the human race thought they were doing right.
You seem to agree with the later politicians, and the leery, possibly too conservative supervisor, that it is wrong to experiment on people without consent, as you noted "humans" having bodily autonomy. But then, that is an absolute principle for all people, not just a self-created moral framework for each person.
So either admit that you are recognizing an absolute moral principle of bodily autonomy, and explain where it comes from, as it can't just be from your own mind if it applies to all. Or admit that there is no problem with experimenting on people, because it is just up to each person.
Last edited:
Upvote
0