system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV - I don't see what's wrong with "morally unethical" human experimentation if all parties are consenting.

This is a bit of a strange CMV because I can *kinda* see the other side, but not quite enough.

In discussing "unethical", I mean the medieval crazy stuff that people did to other people in the name of science. I recently learnt that the doctor considered to be the grandfather of the study of digestion derived most of his learnings from some poor dude he didn't patch up properly. The man had a permanent hole in his stomach which allowed the doctor to peer in and throw all sorts of items inside to study the digestive process. The human subject attempted escape a couple times and was ultimately caught and brought back.

Now using that example, I don't think I would ever want society to regress to that extent. What I propose is that human experimentation be vindicated of its terrible reputation, so that further leaps and bounds in science and technology can be made. If all parties were willing to consent participating in some more of these crazy experiments, I don't see why it should be looked down on. If a man determined to be sound of mind agrees to say, have his lower torso removed for whatever reason, and signs a binding agreement, then I say it should be allowed.

I realize that my puny brain probably missed out some really obvious explanation as to why my proposition is ultimately flawed, and I ask that someone enlighten me.
gpt
One of the biggest problems here is that researchers will offer money for subjects to undergo these unethical experiments ... and desperate people will accept money and agree to be mutilated or risk death etc, so that they can afford to feed their starving children or whatever ... it's doubly unethical.