Would you include delegating to parents the right to sell their children to people who will sacrfice them in order to conduct medical research?
Nope. Not already-born children, with functioning brains. For one thing, there'd be no point to it. I would, however, give parents the right to consent to medical research on their own children (which would presumably be carried out within the ethical guidelines of any other sort of medical research), and prohibit the children from later suing the researchers (i.e. make the parent's liability waiver fully and permanently valid). There is a serious problem in this area, which has prevented a lot of routine research on the effects of various treatments on children and fetuses and women of child-bearing age. Many medications are tested only on men and/or women of non-child-bearing age, and then put on the market as "safe", and later discovered to do serious harm to women and fetuses. More people get harmed this way, than would get harmed by starting out with some small controlled studies on these groups. More harm is bad. Less harm is good.
Now I really am confused.
In an earlier post, you said, "For anyone who never reached that stage (embryo, anencephalic, profoundly retarded, etc.), I would delegate the decision to the parents." The last time I checked, kids who were profoundly retarded had "functioning brains". Yet you would (I think) allow their parents to sell them to medical researchers who would kill them in order to do "more good" -- or, as you put it, "less harm".
But you also confuse me with this: "For one thing, there'd be no point to it."
After you say that, you immediately go on to point out how, to your way of thinking, there would be a point to conducting medical research on human beings incapable of giving their own consent.
Tell me, do you support testing of cosmetics on little bunny rabbits?