New blood substitute tested without consent?

The Navy has been pushing, for awhile now, to begin testing a new blood substitute on trauma victims in emergencies where they might not otherwise survive. The FDA's advisory panel has voted against allowing the use of Hemopure, derived from cow's blood, in these situations because the critically injured patients tested on would not be able to give consent in most cases.

The Navy argues that they desperately need a way of immediately treating injured soldiers in the field who suffer from severe bleeding. Hemopure, because it doesn't require refrigeration and is universally compatible, offers that solution and could save many of the 68% of the soldiers injured in combat that die before reaching a hospital setting. The Navy currently proposes trial testing in the civilian setting, most likely on young male trauma victims under the influence of alcohol, because the battlefield is too unpredictable and uncontrollable an environment.

Although I see the Navy's argument, I have to agree with the FDA panel on this one. Testing on people without their consent is risky business, and animal testing is bad enough -- let's not start on each other.