unoleian said:
What? No.
Wait. What? Absolutely not!
That you even posited the question about whether they should "even have a choice in the matter" appalls me. Prisons and the justice system itself are enough of an inherent problem in and of themselves without turning them into lab-rat factories as well. That's just disgusting.
Fuck pharmaceuticals anyway. A terrible multi-billion dollar business comprised solely of convincing us we have a problem, and marketing hope in a bottle to cure our newly imagined afflictions.
Spare a thought for the scientists behind the marketing - the pharmaceutical companies might want to tell you that you have an affliction you don't just to get money from you, but the people who are actually developing those medicines (to treat the people who *do* have the condition) don't generally think that way. Perhaps you know this. I just took some exception to your generalisation of 'Fuck pharmaceuticals anyway'. It should perhaps be 'fuck mercenary marketing techniques anyway'. =)
OT: In principle, if you could be sure that the informed consent process was the same as everywhere else, then yes, inmates are still people and could thus contribute usefully to a study. However, you would need to find an appropriate way of reimbursing them for their trouble, just as with non-inmates who participate in studies. That might be the tricky part. But I think someone further up in this thread has already addressed that.
