This post may be a bit jumbled up as I respond to bit by bit in no particular order.

First off, I should have better phrased human experimentation.

[i]"Imma explode your crotch so I can see what that is like."[/i]

You're all making it sound much more horrible that it really is. For example, Hitler or Hitler-like experiments are repeatedly brought up.  And exactly what medical benefits does this bring us? I'm suggesting the testing of experimental drugs/techniques that theoretically have a positive effect on the human body but we have no idea if there are potentially unknown side effects. Such drugs take incredibly long times to be approved because they have to give many theoretical reasonings behind why they believe the drug is completely safe for human use.

Regarding the history of the heart-lung machine... the machine itself was perfected through use on humans and adjusting it accordingly. The first patient was a success but subsequently it was discovered that it had a high fatality rate. Only 7 years later after many operations was the machine drastically improved but still had a much higher risk than today for obvious reasons. Is this not exactly what I'm advocating? I'm not telling you to do pointless pain experiments like Hitler wanting to see what happens if you hammer a little boys head every several seconds for days (he really did this). I'm telling you to conduct experiments on techniques or drugs that are mostly complete but need final tweaks and experimentation before they are officially completed and save for human use. As to how much these would improve medical developments, ironically the longest stages and most difficult stages of it are the end experiments where they have to eliminate hidden or long-term risks that are impossibly difficult to spot without actual human testing.

[i]I wouldn't want them to do it on me because it's unsafe. I don't want them to do it to other people because it's also unsafe. "You put a quarter in the Cancer jar -- so why not let me stick a needle in this guy's eyeball?" I don't want people to be manipulated into unsafe experiments by force of circumstance, either. That's a very big leap. In your mind you've set up what's called a 'false equivalency Another example would be, "I've got a friend who keeps a fluffy bunny for a pet, and she loves that it's furry. So why not keep a grizzly bear?"[/i]

That is a horrible example and somewhat irrelevant? How do those examples apply to the ideas I'm advocating/my examples. I'm using the concept of "one man's trash is another person's treasure". My friend loves bunnies but that doesn't mean she likes grizzly bears - This example plays on her own preferences and focuses on her individually, which is what you're doing. A correct example would be "My friend doesn't like snakes because they're relatively dangerous when compared to other pets. She tells me I shouldn't keep one. But I want to." You see, I'm going to have to repeat myself earlier. You find the idea ludicrous because you would never accept it being done to you. You argue that they have no choice. This line is the real important one. They're in a situation where it would be ridiculous to NOT accept the offer and you found that wrong. Because thats essentially forcing it upon them. Heres another relevant example to this, I haven't eaten for 3 days. I'm on the brink of death and someone tells me they'll give me a meal except I have to pay them $10,000 dollars for it. In your perspective, thats a despicable thing to do. They're taking advantage of my situation. So you step im and prevent them from doing it. In reality you just stole my meal away when I would have accepted that $10,000 offer.

[i]Third, if 'that's how crappy their lives are,' and you care, then make their lives less crappy without murdering them. Everybody wins.[/i]

Unfortunately, thats not how it works. How would you improve their lives? Amass millions of dollars and invest into upgrading their entire country one tier? Where would that money come from? You see, this part is human nature. Nobody is inclined or obliged to help others out. Thats why even though everyone knows how much third world countries suffer, only an extremely tiny percentage of a first world country's GDP is sent to them as donations. I'm sorry if this sounds really cruel buts its reality, most people don't care OR at least, they don't care enough that they should help out complete strangers. Thats why many conditions such as ALS have almost no investments made into developing a cure. Why? Because theres no profit for companies out there! They lose money.

Lastly, the primary issue that I see [@mdk] and [@Vilageidiotx] having is that you're worried about such things being exploited. Fortunately, other similar exploitable systems already exist in the world yet they work with proper regulations. By the logic from both of you, wouldn't life insurance be a ridiculous thing? A poor family tries to get their grand parents killed so they can get the lump some of money. "Life insurance should not exist otherwise!" is what you're otherwise saying. 

Human experimentation can definitely be regulated to prevent exploits as well as being relatively safe to the individuals it is performed on. At least to the extent, that the benefits to them outweigh the risks for those being experimented on. However, this is not done nor implemented because the populace is concerned about ethics. For example, theres a huge controversy about sending expired food to third world countries. People bark and shout against it, saying that we should be sending them proper food. Well then, if money were to be asked so they could send proper food, what happens? Everyone shuts up and pretends they don't know about it save for a tiny part of the populace.