I think the thread is turning into a flaming thread (like the one on spanking did....I am out of here.
I think the thread is turning into a flaming thread (like the one on spanking did). We did have some good discussions here, but I am out of here. I will perhaps check later on and see if anybody is making any substantive points.
It usually does happen over the weekend, when the moderators are away.
THIS is a scientific paradox
--
The OP MIGHT be considered an ethical problem.
I am not saying that there war any breaches, Tonington. In fact, if you read my post, I say specifically that I don’t think there were any breaches. But according to prolifers, there were.
I am assuming that he gives the discovery to the world at large, free of charge. Anybody is free to manufacture it. Of course, before anybody can market it, they will have to go through proper channels, FDA approval etc. But there is no patent.
Maybe you are unfamiliar with how this works. Dichloroacetate is a drug currently prescribed for something else. The patent ran out on the drug long ago. The new studies have shown promising results investigating the glucose metabolism (glycolysis) of cancer cells, though no human clinical trials have been conducted. In order to receive licensing to sell this drug as a cancer cure, somebody needs to pay for the clinical trials. No pharmaceutical company will do this, because as the patent has already ran out, a generic brand could sell the cancer cure once the other company produces the results in clinical trials. It's not a new drug, so you can't patent it. So they can't make their money back. So we're stuck with chemotherapy and radiation treatment, with adverse health side effects until someone out of the goodness of their heart spends that money. There is no profit incentive. So it must be from a philanthropist, or public funds.
In USA prolifers can try to stop anything they want. Just as they have launched a crusade against abortion performing doctors (they killed one recently), they can launch a crusade against doctors who are performing the trials.
Indeed not. And I didn’t even say that using this discovery is unethical. All I am saying is that there are two sides to the issue and some may consider it unethical. There are tow sides to the issue.
Quite possibly you are right. But the influence of Dr. Mad may push some of them over the line.
Not at all. What I am saying is that my decision would be influence by ethics, combined with self interest.
That is the ends justifying the means. Your self-interest is used to justify using the drug. Anyway, I am off to a b’bq. Bye.
Ton....why are you still argueing this question? It's not even a paradoxical question, it's an ethical one.
Ton....why are you still argueing this question? It's not even a paradoxical question, it's an ethical one.
