[quote=@mdk] And what I'm saying is, take that person from a third world country, offer them food, lodging, and money, and treat the fatal diseases/ailments that can easily be treated, and heck, give them all the money you would've spent on experimentation, too, why not, for the sake of conversation. Then see what sort of difference they make in the world. These are not animals we're talking about -- their lives are every bit as important as the people you're trying to cure. I know it's not intentional, but your premise is inhumane from the very first. "You let them take the experiment, they get the hope of living." [i]In what way[/i] is that a reasonable bargaining position? Really sit back and think about it. That's monstrous. [/quote] Your mentality is exactly what I'm talking about. You argue how these experiments would be a violation of their rights. "Who are we to conduct such experiments on them if we wouldn't to ourselves?" Basically thats just self-gratification. Not everyone is equal. Some people are born in shittier standards and others are born with a silver spoon in their mouth. What might sound like a horrible offer to you is a wonderful off to them. Your logic is warped when you realize all the people against these experiments due to 'ethics' don't give two shits when the headlines are about how children are starving in Africa or in Timor-Leste. I can give you a much brighter example of what you're advocating. I have a friend who hates to share leftovers. She absolutely refuses to let anyone touch her leftovers because she doesn't like the idea of it. She said it feels like she's giving people shit she wouldn't want. That she wouldn't want people to offer her leftovers either. Thats you right now, basically you're against the whole idea of risky human experiments because you would never want someone to do that risky experiment on you. But that logic doesn't necessarily apply to me. See, I'm hungry and I have no issues with eating that half eaten slice of pizza. But she won't let me because she doesn't like the idea of someone eating her leftovers. Thats self-gratification. You mentioned in your first post that "[b]actually finds a cure for anything at all[/b]". First off, directly testing drugs on humans allow you to collect accurate and immediate data as opposed to animal testing or rambling about stuff in theory. The latter is horribly ineffective because you're essentially just hypothesizing the possible effects. [b]Secondly, "Your panacea is made out of the shattered lives of everyone who got the shitty Drug 1.0". How did you think medical breakthroughs occurred in the past...? Because physicians back then experimented on animals and had profound understanding of chemistry and the human biology and were able to write reports on why X or Y would be effective? For example, the heart lung machine of today. It was perfected through experimenting on humans. Those humans died. Do people who require cardiopulmonary bypasses today refuse the treatment because it was a technique perfected using the deaths of other humans? Do doctors feel guilty for using it?[/b] The real monstrous and despicable thing here is that people don't want to get their hands dirty. Everyone turns a blind eye to the obvious solutions because it would hurt their conscience. Even though these things only hold benefits for the masses; even to the ones its commited on because thats how crappy their lives are. And noone cares how crappy their lives are. If somehow you're able to refuse these points of mine, then I will accept that I'm wrong in thinking this way.