fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2750 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2750 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02. [WARNING for animal death]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #393.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

All of you who are suggesting that we should test on human subjects without informed consent really need to read "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" and see how incredibly wrong you are.

Also the declaration of human rights.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

AYRT

Right? According to most people in this thread, once you're a condemned criminal, you lose all your human rights.

Which is really disturbing, because the point of human rights is you don't get to pick and choose who gets them to suit you. It's supposed to be universal.

Man, I wasn't surprised by some of the comments made by regulars, but a couple of them I'd never would have thought would think like that. Just wow.

the only one that was kind of surprising was queerwolf. iceyred's response was pretty much what could be expected from them at this point as was otakugal's. I don't really know the person whose username starts with an "x"

That's who I was referring to. I didn't want to single them out, so I was being vague. It was disappointing to see.

I disagree with them but I didn't find it particularly disappointing or a deal breaker

It isn't a dealbreaker for me either. It was just a little disappointing, that's it. Them again, I shouldn't be surprised since society in general thinks of criminals as less than human.

Henrietta Lacks wasn't a condemned criminal so the comparison wouldn't make sense unless OP was asking people to choose between animals and unimprisoned civilians to be tested on. iirc though, didn't they just experiment on the cells they harvested from her rather than the women herself? I think going with the tuskegee syphilis example would have been a slightly better choice since they were actually given a disease without their consent through a federally funded experiment

AYRT

I didn't mean Henrietta Lacks, though her cells were taken without consent. I mean just what I said - read the book. It goes into great detail about the history of medical research done without consent on prisoners and poor black people, including the Tuskegee syphilis study.

AYRT again

Also, if you really want to be nitpicky, the Tuskegee experiments were also not on condemned prisoners.

I'm aware, I just thought they would have been a better example that Lacks even if it's still not accurate to the choice proposed by OP. I misunderstood what the anon was getting at anyway though so the point is moot

[ SECRET POST #2750 ]

No.

Re: No.

Re: No.

Re: No.

Re: No.

Re: No.

Re: No.

Re: No.

Re: No.

Re: No.

Re: No.

Re: No.

Re: No.