John Feinbaum, president of the Canadian Centre For Humane Science, kicked up a hornet’s nest yesterday at a charity gala when he suggested it was time to reconsider the morality of human testing.

“I stand by what I said,” says John. "I believe that medical research would grow by leaps and bounds if we eradicated certain legal restrictions on human testing. I don’t think we should experiment on everyone, just people who don’t contribute anything to society. Namely criminals, the children of the rich and famous, and ravers."

John says that if experimenting on certain people was made legal, we could have a cure for aids within a decade. “Imagine how much more we could learn about aids if we were allowed to experiment on ravers with impunity? We could inject them with aids and then engage in all manners of experiments that are currently off-limits to scientists. Ravers are worthless as human beings, but their biology is priceless."

Ethicists agree that experimenting on ravers, criminals, and the children of the rich and famous is a morally sound idea. “Not all human beings are created equally,” says moral philosopher Andrew Weaver. “Some people are worth far less than others, and ravers, criminals, and the children of the rich and famous are at the very bottom of the totem pole of human worth. I think it’s okay to sacrifice a few worthless people if it means saving the lives of countless worthy people."

Politicians, for their part, are now considering relaxing ethical restraints on medical experimentation. “Mr. Feinbaum believes that we should be free to experiment on certain classes of people,” says Green Democracy M.P John Goebbels, “however, his categories need to be broadened so that they include white cis hetero men, who are the scum of the earth and deserve to be eradicated. Intersectionality akbar!"

John says that he is open to creating a larger category of socially worthless people. “I think Mr. Goebbels and I can both agree on at least one thing,” says John, “and that’s that University graduates have a responsibility to decide who should be sacrificed to medical science and who shouldn’t. We can work out the details later."