[quote=@Animus]You're all making it sound much more horrible that it really is. For example, Hitler or Hitler-like experiments are repeatedly brought up.[/quote]

Only once, actually, and only to point out how irrelevant it is to the conversation. I'm specifically [i]not[/i] calling you Hitler. Just wanted to reiterate that. Because what you're in fact talking about is just what you said next:

[quote]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.[/quote]

This is what I'm disagreeing with. Or rather, the insinuation that this is an injustice. "First, do no harm." That is the bedrock of medical ethics and it should be. If you want to harm yourself to save others, that's your prerogative -- but medical institutions can't make that call. It's hairy enough with organ donors coming into an ER. Open those doors and things get miserable [i]really darn quickly[/i]. 

[quote]*snip Iron Lung response*[/quote]

What you're advocating is skipping the part where the life-saving machine was tested and proven effective on animals first. What you're advocating is Joe Scientist coming into the patent office and saying "Hey, I bet if I chop open a sick guy's chest I can hook up a motor and probably keep him alive. Send me a hundred brown people and I'll prove it." What [i]I'm[/i] advocating is exactly what happened -- the life-saving device was tested, proven effective, and successfully implemented with no human suffering, and the safe practice was refined over time as our understanding improved. It didn't save everybody, but it didn't kill anybody. That is a night-and-day distinction.

[quote][i]why not keep a grizzly bear?[/i]

That is a horrible example and somewhat irrelevant?[/quote]

Exactly. I'm demonstrating the reason why false equivalency is bad thinking. That was the point of that illustration.

[quote]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.[/quote]

The only moral thing to do in that situation is to give you a meal for a fair price (I know, I know, you hippies reading this are saying FREE MEAL! bite me). The person taking $10k for a cheeseburger is stealing from you. That person is objectively terrible. What I've been arguing all along is that we continue to practice humane research to help people safely. And I've already linked like a handful of new treatments (just from the last couple of years) to demonstrate what should be readily apparent just from the state of the world you keep moaning about -- western medicine works. Ebola broke out in Africa, not here, and we still cured it in [i]weeks.[/i] We're doing everything right, far as research is concerned, and the crazy part is [i]you already implicitly recognize this by comparing the US-Africa health situations.[/i] 

[quote][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. [/quote]

Bullshit. That's [i]exactly[/i] how it works, and if you're not already doing it, you don't actually care.

[quote]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? [/quote]

You can't solve everything =/= you can't do anything. =/= you should just use them as lab rats instead.

[quote]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. [/quote]

"That's a monstrous crime" is what I'm saying. "You shouldn't murder people to get an advantage" is what I'm saying. One of us is arguing against that.

[quote]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.[/quote]

What? [i]Exactly that[/i] is 'done and implemented,' and it's [i]because[/i] the populace is concerned about ethics. Rightly so. You have an unreasonable definition of what's 'relatively safe to the individuals,' and that's where your frustration is coming from. If you get rid of that, you'll see that the system [i]already actually does what you want it to do, better than how you want to do it, without killing people.[/i] Stop trying to fix it with murder.