http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4434806.stm
This might show that he is still got it.

Just because something is good for humanity does not make it right - for instance at one time it was ok to burn witches for the good of humanity when in reality when we look back on history people feared women holding property. So people died for no cause - not saying totally the same thing by any means but... I would not want people taking away my personal freedoms unless I gave them the ok to do so. Forcing people to others will is not a good thing - what shall we find next that we would deem good for humanity - long shot here but those people who have aids should be shot so that we stop the spread of the virus..... so it is good for humanity as a whole.... that is crazy. At any rate we are close to having cures for AIDS I believe anyway - I'll ask my bro and get back to you - he actually is a geneticist which works on AIDS research so he would know more than I do on the subject - I am spectulating.

I think the comparison with AIDS and witch burning is a little too different as is the women holding property. This is partly because the examples you mention are unscientific and secondly because if the guy does come back they will do the same test on him again. If its positive it means that the doctors got it wrong, if negative, there will be other tests. Besides this I'm pretty sure that the doctors will treat him as a human being, not as a test specimen.

I guess the question is how everyone sees personal freedom and its relationship with the 'greater good'. I'm not sure myself.I don't believe in absolutes, and it's hard to explain grey opinions as they are affected by many circumstances.

Sometimes, I just wish I was a rabid this or that. Because the way discussing with ppl from either end of the spectrum always goes is: they 'accuse' you of being on the other end of the spectrum. So put me in a discussion with a fascist and a commie, and they'll both say I'm the other thing. Which leads to unfruitful discussions, to say the least. That's why they all need to die. (hehehe) jk

I'm with Shiny. Though the differences between burning witches and forcing a guy to become a lab rat may seem gigantic, it's the same basic principle. The good of the many outweighing the good of the few. And who's to say what's good for who?

A similar example was the red scare (in the US) and the current terror scare (all over the world). We're indefinetely detaining people, without charges, for the good of humanity. But that doesn't make it right.

I agree OX - truthfully I will often take the other side of an arguement because I think somebody needs to take it - I think that a healthy arguement is a good thing as I am not sure anybody should close their minds off to an idea that they could be wrong. Therefore, someday someone may be able to convince me of something I believe is wrong, but that is not likely as I have already played with those same arguemments odds are.... but it is good to be able to see both sides to truely understand ones place on the "scale"

I was going to write something but it sounded crap so I'm not going to say it.