Experimenting on Prisoners - Joshua Pregnar

This summer while an extern with a cardiovascular surgeon in the Scranton area I heard him make a few convincing arguments as to why prisoners, specifically those with life sentences, should be used to help advance modern medicine. I found it interesting that as he made his case no one in the operating room, an additional 5 or 6 people, voiced any objection. It seemed as if these people who had dedicated their life to saving peoples lives, they were all helping perform open heart surgery, felt no moral obligation to those on the fringes of society. However, it is possible that no one voiced an opposing opinion so as not to disrupt the surgeon or create unnecessary tension in their work place.

His argument approximately followed these lines. Since these people had committed a heinous crime they were now indebted to society as a whole. What better way to pay off this debt than to become the guinea pig for an experimental procedure? If everything went well and they survived that was great. If the procedure had not yet been perfected and they died it was no loss to society, they were sentenced to death anyhow. To justify this person's death he stated that valuable information about how to properly perform the procedure would undoubtedly be gained. After a number of such procedures, in his case revolutionary heart operations, the procedure would be perfected. The sacrifice of a few prisoners would to the healing of countless patients throughout the world. In this way death row inmates could pay their debt to society.

He also argued that such a practice would not only advance medicine but also benefit society in a number of other ways. It would help cure prison overcrowding issues. Additionally, keeping the prisoner alive was a financial burden on society, as was the cost of a lethal injection. This money could then be put to a better use. He also felt if prison was less of a day spa there would be fewer criminals.

This summer I did not voice an objection to his claims for a number of reasons. One, he was my boss and signed my pay checks. Secondly, I was still spellbound by what I was seeing everyday and did not want to get two involved in such a deep conversation, afraid that I would miss something spectacular. Most importantly though I did not have a position on this topic let alone the facts necessary to back it up. However, if I were to engage in such a conversation with him today I would confront him about his willingness to take away a prisoners autonymy, even if society stood to gain so much from it.