The use of the data or technology gathered by unethical means

Today I watched this video on youtube. In it the doctor states that because the holographic consultant's data was based on a person that violated all sorts of ethical considerations in gathering it, that the data should not be used.

In the comments section, there are two viewpoints that seem to prevail.

1 that data gather threw unethical meals encourages and legitimize such actions and thus it should not be used

2 that the deed is done and if we can help people with the data then at least peoples suffering can be used for some good.

Which of these two stances do you fall under? Do you have a totally different stance?

My stance:

1 that data gather throuth unethical meals encourages and legitimize such actions and thus it should not be used

It cannot be used when in a criminal case so there is one major limitation, the law states that evidence obtained by unethical means can not be used in court ...however....then we go to the next stance.

2 that the deed is done and if we can help people with the data then at least peoples suffering can be used for some good.

Evidence obtained through unethical means will nontheless be stored and reviewed and a good detective will try to obtain similar evidence to still make it able to use it to make a better case , so even if it does not hold up in court this time it might indirectly in the next.

Its a struggle to walk so close to the edge

Serenity you misunderstand. I am not talking about court evidence. I am talking about medical, scientific, or engineering data. In particular medical as per the video link.

Ah yes , i understood that , i just wanted to offer my 2 cents from my perspective. The same principles still stand though. Even in medicine its frowned upon to use data obtained in for instance the WW2 ( dr Mengele as a famous example) and we can like it or not , but he actually brought forward medicine with his greuwsome experiments,

So yeah i have mixed feelings about this because these data can save lifes , but that does not mean we should always try to get our data legaly and ethical

I watched the entire episode in order to get the context. This is one of those ethical dilemmas. On the one hand we have to understand the history of how our medical resources were obtained. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a book which discusses the unethical means by which her cells were taken. The cells produced uncountable cures and breakthroughs in modern medicine. But it doesn't change the fact that they were obtained without her knowledge and consent.
The syphilis experiment exposed individuals to the condition to see its natural progression. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment. As a result of this experiment and it's consequences we now have informed consent and researchers are required to distribute treatment found to be effective for any studied disease.
The question should data be collected unethically I can answer with the firm no. At the same time wouldn't it be unethical to not distribute treatment we know has been effective just because the treatment and the research was done unethically?
As it were we cannot change the past. We demonstrate that we can and have learned from it. See above. But the people we have benefited from ought to be compensated. In the case that they can't be compensated, their children should be. It doesn't right the wrong, it acknowledges it.

Two, but assert no reward and indeed punish such current or future violations.

Easy to say, and has implications, and begs the question about the use of rewards to achieve consent and its potential for abuse.

It seems that most people view it as I do. That there is nothing to be gained by allowing further harm to continue if we can prevent it. Even when the data or tech comes from a tainted source.

Does anyone find any merit in the idea that we further victimize those hurt by profiting from or using the tainted data or tech? Do you think the victims should have a say? Or are they too close to be rational about it?

As a cancer patient and a participant in clinical trials, I have a biased opinion about ill gotten medical data or technology that isn't very popular. We should never use data collected or technology developed in an unethical fashion. Ever. It isn't simply about the ends justifying the means or the greater good. It is about maintaining the sanctity of human life and each individual's right to it. I am willing to sacrifice my life in the name of science if it will save others in the future, but it has to be with my full consent, cooperation, and on my terms.

Once we allow the use of data or technology acquired by unethical means, we are setting the precedent that one life (the future patient or benefactor of the research) is more important than another (the person being experimented on). This creates the opportunity for those of greater means (read that as "rich") to justify exploiting people who are in desperate life and death situations. The fact that a procedure, medication, or treatment is discovered through unethical experimentation will not stop a drug company or a hospital from selling that remedy for profit, and they will not compensate the original victim or their family because they don't have to legally. Meanwhile, they will get a patent on the technology, procedure or recipe and then jack up the price.

I realize the irony of denying someone a life saving treatment because it was obtained unethically given that I am currently looking for any life saving treatments for myself, but this is a very slippery slope and human nature has demonstrated time and again that once you condone behavior like this, it is impossible to go backward. There will always be a justification for using tainted data or technology, no matter how loud the dissenting voices become. It cannot be allowed or tolerated. Any doctor doing research of this kind is in violation of his Hippocratic Oath to "first do no harm" and isn't a doctor in my eyes. They are a criminal violating one of the most sacred of the inalienable rights, that being the right to life.

Senan wrote: As a cancer patient and a participant in clinical trials, I have a biased opinion about ill gotten medical data or technology that isn't very popular. We should never use data collected or technology developed in an unethical fashion. Ever. It isn't simply about the ends justifying the means or the greater good. It is about maintaining the sanctity of human life and each individual's right to it. I am willing to sacrifice my life in the name of science if it will save others in the future, but it has to be with my full consent, cooperation, and on my terms.

Once we allow the use of data or technology acquired by unethical means, we are setting the precedent that one life (the future patient or benefactor of the research) is more important than another (the person being experimented on). This creates the opportunity for those of greater means (read that as "rich") to justify exploiting people who are in desperate life and death situations. The fact that a procedure, medication, or treatment is discovered through unethical experimentation will not stop a drug company or a hospital from selling that remedy for profit, and they will not compensate the original victim or their family because they don't have to legally. Meanwhile, they will get a patent on the technology, procedure or recipe and then jack up the price.

I realize the irony of denying someone a life saving treatment because it was obtained unethically given that I am currently looking for any life saving treatments for myself, but this is a very slippery slope and human nature has demonstrated time and again that once you condone behavior like this, it is impossible to go backward. There will always be a justification for using tainted data or technology, no matter how loud the dissenting voices become. It cannot be allowed or tolerated. Any doctor doing research of this kind is in violation of his Hippocratic Oath to "first do no harm" and isn't a doctor in my eyes. They are a criminal violating one of the most sacred of the inalienable rights, that being the right to life.

See I totally disagree here. I do not condone the behavior that gained the data. I am not saying not to punish the person that obtained the data. I am just saying we have the data and to toss it out when it can save lives is just pointless. I could not stand on a shore and watch a person drown when I have the tools to save them. I could not look a dying person in the eye an say sorry buddy we could save you but how the data was gained was distastefull so we are going to let you die due to the sins of others. I considering standing by and watching a man die that you have the power to save without risking death or injury not much better than pulling the trigger yourself. The evil has been done. We cant take it back. But we can prevent future suffering with it and I just cant see why we should not. Its not like we are telling people to break ethics to get more data. We in fact are jailing the person that gained the data and stopping them from profiting off of it.

We profit from data gleaned through unsavory means every day. If data is gathered, it will probably be used in some form or another (arguing whether or not it should be deleted is very rarely relevant as, in most cases, it will not be deleted). That said, I believe that the measures taken to defend against bad practices of data gathering, as well as the damages sought from those who attempt such practices, should be extremely large (far more than proportional to the offense). If a company does something untoward to gather medical data, say, and is then fined only a few million for the offense, that slap on the wrist will not deter them in the future (but will simply get written in as part of their overhead expenditures). Likewise, the knowledge of where data comes from should be a matter of public knowledge in all cases but especially in cases where the data-gathering was harmful or immoral -- it should be information available at the click of a button.

That said, many advances in, say, women's health were achieved by horrible practices involving slave women -- the women who make use of those advances should not be personally indicted due to their use of the advance. Rather, the society as a whole should take on the moral burden of all such offenses. I'm all for a class in elementary school entitled "Our Moral Obligations" or somesuch, which clearly details the pitfalls and failings of the country (of any country).