i'm not aware of any medical data collected from car crash fatalities. if there was data collected i'm sure the immediate family would be notified and asked if it could be used.
I've read more than one SciFi story in which, as the need for organs grew, they allowed organ harvesting from death row inmates. Then, as the need grew still further, they began expanding the number of crimes eligible for the death penalty to meet the needs. Ultimately, jay walkers were being sentenced to death so that some rich old dude could have his organ(s).
your wrong there, the very investigation itself is an exercise in collecting more than evidence. For instance say 2 cars hit eachother head on, both occupants are killed. Why do an investigation? to learn if the crash could have been prevented thats why. Thats why we have coronor's courts, crash investigation units both in the police and in achademia, autopsys ect. Not to mention that everytime a pt comes into a hospital and is treated they add to a knowlage database. If its a paticulally interesting or strange case it will be written up and posted in medical journals. The last thing we should be doing is ignoring knowlage because the source is dead or it was collected unethically. Deal with the crime but dont let other people die when the knowlage is there to save them
Suppose that I put a gun to a woman's head and gave her the option of having sex with me instead of being shot to death. Would that be rape?
yes, to reconstruct the accident. there are no experiments conducted on the bodies save for toxicology tests. you are talking about crime/ traffic scene reconstruction. this is a lot different than cutting pieces off a living person just to see how much flesh can be dispensed with before dying. again, this isn't dealing with unethical operations or procedures. also, the patient is fully aware of what is being done to them. if said patient is in a coma then the next of kin is notified and they make the decision. i stand by my opinion in this matter. the victims and their families deserve the credit for the discovories, not some german fucknut that thinks he's a scientist.
lets make this clear: i find war unethical but it lead to the "golden rule" So as a paramedic, should i follow the "golden rule" or should i ignore it because it came out of trauma in war and just take as much time as i want getting the pt to hospital? which is the ethical way to go?
to treat people like the self determining individuals that they are. would you really remove someones kidney for the sole reason of "to see what would happen"? this is the essence of what is being discussed here. don't get me wrong, i believe the data in question has value, but i believe the victims and their families deserve the reckonition for the discovery.
they were recognised, in the criminal trials that took place AGAINST these unethical practices. The same can be said of the Cartwrite Inquiry (or was it Cartright? i cant rember). NO ONE things the practice was ethical, NO ONE didnt want the basted in jail and those who didnt report him to the health department sooner. However if some of that "resurch" can be used to save someones life then they will use it. We studied the Dr Herb Green case in ethics, we were given limited infomation about the scientific value of the resurch and asked to determine if it was ethical and what conditions would be put on the resurch. Surprisingly out of a whole class NO ONE said they wouldnt alow the resurch to go ahead, just that we would put psychologists and other gynocologists in place to make sure the a) the pts were chosing to do it of there own free will and b) that the pts were informed about what the resurch was doing to them and could stop and switch to conventional med if they so chose. That was the issue, Green DIDNT even tell them they were being resurched on, he didnt even tell them they had cancer when it progressed discoved. On the scientific side the resurch had already established what he was refusing to accept AND he ignored his OWN findings that surported that resurch. So from a science stand point his resurch had no merit but from an ETHICAL stand point he was compleatly violating pts rights So lets say he DID find something of value. 24? women died during the "resurch" but lets just pretend he actually found something of worth. How many MORE women would you want to die or suffer dibilitating illness because the resurch is there but was obtained unethically?
Why? Suppose the criminal in question committed some horrific crime, felt genuine remorse, and wanted to do something to try to make up for his wrongdoing?
This actually sounds like a really good idea but wouldn't those said patents have expired by now? Perhaps they could be allowed to keep a token percentage in order to provide an incentive to earn more?
Yes, of course. I wouldn't want to run a harsh prison. By working hard they could get extras like food and bedding.
There will be no need for anyone to be hungry in the Kremmen Penitentiary. So long as each prisoner works according to the best of his ability, he/she will be given sustenance.
Whenever anyone begins a sentence with "there will be no need for X in the Y" I start to get suspicious.
Prisoners will be given the task of sorting through bags of refuse. All dustbin bags will be taken to prisons for sorting. Paper, plastics and organics are to be separated into different sections. Paper will be pulped, plastics further resorted, and organics made into compost. This compost will be used on the prison farm. All prisoners will work 40 hours per week, or food and bedding will be restricted.
They'll probably get a lot of personal info from the garbage and use it for nefarious purposes. I would put them to work on farms and fields, growing stuff. Or run a school inside the prison system. Have a social rehab program. With music and dancing and ethnic cooking or wine tasting classes. Art and pottery. Drawing and oils. That kind of stuff. You should give people a reason to change. And enjoying your life is a good reason to change.
