[beeperbot]

Your "philosophical debate" is about an impending, unintended catastrophe. These were conscious actions by people who could have (to use situation in your debate) replaced the live, innocent human beings with straw dummies.

They shouldn't have done it at all. But even if in some twisted world they needed to, they could have warned everyone and come up with ways to protect hospitals.

[mentat]

They did not believe it would have any effect and believed that in good faith. It's easy 60 years later with dramatically advanced science to say "well of course it would and should" but that misses the point.

[MisterBastahrd]

That they experimented on people at all without their consent is reason enough to be outraged.

[peatmoss]

Agreed. This isn't a hypothetical, unavoidable event. This was an act that required an affirmative decision to initiate. Call me a Nuremberg protocol hardliner.