I was just thinking, it's really something else to experiment on humans in general. But it must be really horrible, for those individuals who were experimented on during a time that they really needed to maintain as usual, for any number of reasons.
For example, someone has an ordinary life and they're just doing their thing, it must be bad, to be a guinea pig. But then, imagine being a guinea pig when it is a very difficult time in ones life when they might need their faculties and wouldn't want to be put through different risks of various outcomes.
I would imagine that while experimentation always has its risks, it would be most unethical and immoral to conduct such studies, knowing someone is going through a time where they would need to be fully imformed about what is happening to them, to their jminds, their bodies, whether it be psychological or psychic experimentation or biological or medicinal, whatever it might be.
If anything, it would seem pure harassment and harm could be justified even, if it has a stamp or seal of approval for being for the benefit of "science". Someone could do terrible things as a gang member, or corporate gang member, whatever, and then switch it over to being for "research" and get away with actually doing the same thing but claiming the end objective is for the good of science or the country.
The motives of those being debriefed or fed a line, and their objectives and end goals could be completely different from the original motives of those who just want to find an excuse to tamper with someone but make it legal.
For example, an old example...LSD given to regular Joe might be just for science. But LSD given to Joe who the government worker's personal group really hates, would be more criminal than "legitimate" and yet one could claim it's all for science or the country. It's a very good way to legalize or legitimize straight abuse or torture and to conceal motive.
Anything done to someone which could affect the way they would naturally handle stressors or details in their lives, would seem to be especially immoral if done at a time of importance in that person's life.
It would be bad for someone to try psychic research on someone who is a medium and practices already. But, for example, it could be devastating to do this with someone who is working on their Master's degree and trying to get a normal profesional job. It might seem to be no big deal to do this with mental ward patients, who don't have their reputations to lose, but it would affect the ability of the patient to ever get out, or be believed, because no one would believe them.
Watching men have sex with escorts while on LSD might seem scientific--they're doing something they shouldn't do, is the rationale. And yet, if one of those men is a competitor or an adversary of some kind and this is done, it would be taking professional power and authority to do things which are solely to humiliate and degrade someone for the satisfaction and pleasure of one whose motives were impure to begin with.
Is it really for science? or was it to make a point? or to further one's own agenda or group objectives? these are probably questions one might ask.
If it's something done for the seeming good of a person, but without their consent, what then? I would say, if it so affects a person and is experimental and the results would be unknown, it would be highly unethical to do such a thing at a time when that person needs to be themself and fully aware of what is going on and able to appreciate risks and how it might affect their abilities to conduct their lives and affairs.
Anyone could explain away almost anything as "being in their best interests" and yet, if it is, why wouldn't someone tell that person and allow them to decide? Whether it's medication, birth control, experimental drugs, whatever, people probably have the right to consent, but even MORESO if that person in the middle of an extremely important phase in life.
It would be cruel to try out medications on someone, a man, for example, if he was in the middle of divorce proceedings. Depending on what happens to him, it could give the other party an unfair advantage.
Putting someone on something without their knowledge also has the effect of allowing others to switch up the environment and then make claims that the person's perceptions have to do with medication, not the fact that the environment others have created has changed.
For example...You could have someone sitting at a bar with 5 people. The person doesn't know they are on medications of some kind. The 5 people do know, either because they are involved with the experiment or they got word somehow. So they sit around and joke and laugh and have a great time with the person, and tell others the medication is really great and seems to work. Then, one day, you could claim to "prove" the person "needs medication" by stating you will take that person off of medications and they will have problems again. So, without knowing, the person is off of medications and the 5 know this. They decide they want to drive the point home that the new experimental drugs are wonderful, so when they see there is no difference in behavior, or if they already know there won't be, they drum up a little excitement. One decides to start glaring and whispering all the time. One decides to make the person look like they don't remember anything correctly. Another comes in wearing a strange outfit and talks about alien life. Another decides to just follow the person all the time until they are paranoid. Then, when the person strts to talk about all the weird things that are going on, they collectively say, "See! this person is totally different now".
What would be even more dangerous, is to first acheive an idea that someone is ill or needs a certain medication or has a problem. Then, it is easy to do many harmful things and feel secure in the belief that no one will believe the reports of the one who is being targeted.
I see all kinds of potential for harm really.
But I wonder how often it really happens?
I also wonder, what if there is an experiment which is authorized but it is totally dangerous and harmful to someone. Yet it got government, let's just say, clearance. The person is very sick because of effects of an experiment and the protocol is just let nature take its course and allow the person to become more and more ill. There is a known antidote. Let's say there is a humanitarian who is a rebel and they give that antidote to the person, knowing that person needs it, but that it's unauthorized and they themselves will be penalized if caught.
These would be good things to do of course. Imagine such things happening to a child. Maybe even "for science" but really, the motive is political or personal and has noting to do with science but only to harm someone and satisfy some goal. Mabye it's personal jealousy or hatred of an enemy, so someone innocent is targeted, to get ot the other person who cares, but done "legally" as if it's for the good of a nation.
Who is able to stop this? Who is able to step in and persuade others that the motives are personal and vindictive and immoral? Maybe some might care then. Possibly, some wouldn't care, as long as the experiment continues because they themselves have become fascinated with the outcomes and results. So fascinated, in fact, that they don't even care what the motives of the operators are, as long as some kind of interesting results are produced, which makes for an enjoyable game and astonishes and amazes, and in the justification of having a morbid curiosity, it is encouraged for "the sake of scientific research" and "the progress of our nation".
I suppose it's true these things happen. That even citizens of their own country become hostages or POW and that criminals who practice under an auspice of research get away with serving their own agendas while decieviing others into allowing it to continue in the first place.