It is difficult for me to fall into agreement with the belief that a correctional institution is not an inherently coercive environment. Due to the inadequate health care services and facilities, financially depraved condition of prisoners, and altruistic desire to contribute to society, achieving free, un-coerced consent is extremely difficult. Furthermore, I am aware of the fact that despite these federal regulations and restrictions, various companies are still finding ways to contract with prisons for research and experimentation. It is reported that between 2006 and 2008, a drug company called Hythian contracted with different states like Indiana, Washington, Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia to enroll criminal defendants in an experiential drug treatment program called Prometa (Reiter 502). The program cost $15,000 per research subject and lasted 30 days with three different drugs which had not been approved by the FDA. Despite these records, no federal agency has investigated the effects of this program thus far on the prisoners. This Hythian contract substantiates the fear that private pharmaceutical companies are still conducting experiments in correctional settings despite federal regulations.
Keramet Reiter writes that, “Forty years after Dr. Kligman conducted his dioxin experiments and thirty years after the implementation of strict federal regulations virtually banning the use of prisoners in medical experiments, prisoner subjects continue to be used in medical experiments” (Reiter 502). While I am not against the involvement of prisoners in research, I do not believe that it should not be the first step. Prior to increasing the participation of prisoners, there needs to be a re-assessment of the prison system and the environment in which these research would take place. To ensure that prisoner’s autonomy is respected, we must make sure that the environment in which they are making their decision is un-coerced. If we decide to grant prisoners the choice to participate, then that carries a responsibility of ensuring that prisoners are provided adequate healthcare. Having a good healthcare system in place prior to the research could be a good mechanism to combat various undue inducements. Concerning informed consent, scientists need to ensure that the information presented in informed consent forms can be easily comprehend by the prison population. The disclosure of information may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Moving forward, to ensure that we can provide better support for prison research, the conditions of confinement need to be fundamentally changed, with a shift in thinking from confinement and punishment to rehabilitation.
Jescinta Izevbigie
It is difficult for me to fall into agreement with the belief that a correctional institution is not an inherently coercive environment. Due to the inadequate health care services and facilities, financially depraved condition of prisoners, and altruistic desire to contribute to society, achieving free, un-coerced consent is extremely difficult. Furthermore, I am aware of the fact that despite these federal regulations and restrictions, various companies are still finding ways to contract with prisons for research and experimentation. It is reported that between 2006 and 2008, a drug company called Hythian contracted with different states like Indiana, Washington, Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia to enroll criminal defendants in an experiential drug treatment program called Prometa (Reiter 502). The program cost $15,000 per research subject and lasted 30 days with three different drugs which had not been approved by the FDA. Despite these records, no federal agency has investigated the effects of this program thus far on the prisoners. This Hythian contract substantiates the fear that private pharmaceutical companies are still conducting experiments in correctional settings despite federal regulations.
Keramet Reiter writes that, “Forty years after Dr. Kligman conducted his dioxin experiments and thirty years after the implementation of strict federal regulations virtually banning the use of prisoners in medical experiments, prisoner subjects continue to be used in medical experiments” (Reiter 502). While I am not against the involvement of prisoners in research, I do not believe that it should not be the first step. Prior to increasing the participation of prisoners, there needs to be a re-assessment of the prison system and the environment in which these research would take place. To ensure that prisoner’s autonomy is respected, we must make sure that the environment in which they are making their decision is un-coerced. If we decide to grant prisoners the choice to participate, then that carries a responsibility of ensuring that prisoners are provided adequate healthcare. Having a good healthcare system in place prior to the research could be a good mechanism to combat various undue inducements. Concerning informed consent, scientists need to ensure that the information presented in informed consent forms can be easily comprehend by the prison population. The disclosure of information may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Moving forward, to ensure that we can provide better support for prison research, the conditions of confinement need to be fundamentally changed, with a shift in thinking from confinement and punishment to rehabilitation.
Jescinta Izevbigie