Human Rights vs Efficiency?
Being human is a basic right and the Law may not remove that right.
"Legal adventures" that stretch or challenge the Law as it is so may establish precidents that allows more erosion of the power of the word decreed by Government. Once nobody follows Law it becomes irrelevant and unenforceable. It may still exist to dumbfound future lawyers, but for the present a law seems rendered ineffective if it is constantly broken.
That may be a misapprehension. It takes the bringing of action to bring the law to the attention of the courts. Citizens have a right to protest, this can also be an effective way to bring about law changes, though requiring the intervention of an afflicted or converted politician. We can withdraw our labour and change things.
But who is going to go on strike or protest for the human rights of those behind bars who willingly enter a medical experiment? Considering the case of a New Zealander (not a prisoner, but the next best thing, a tourist) in London who was paid about five thousand dollars to try out a new drug that nearly killed him and has left him with cancer.
Would it have been less difficult for us to digest if that were a prisoner who was also being paid to be experimented upon?
Of course, if medical testing were always that dramatic, there would be no drugs. Most of the time, the test may not have a life threatening aspect to it. The prisoner is as (un)safe as any volunteer.
