An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

[SirJosephPorter]

I got the idea for this thread from one of Ron's post about experimentation by the Nazis. This is an unresolved paradox in science. Let me paint a vivid, lurid picture for you.

There is this brilliant, innovative scientist, let us call him doctor Mad. He is also filthy rich, another Bill Gates or Warren Buffet (let us say he inherited his wealth).

He has been working in seclusion in his estate on a small, remote island which he owns. After 20 years of painstaking research, he releases his results to the world, he has found a cure for cancer.

What he does is that he induces cancer in his human subjects (obtained by kidnapping, false promises etc.) and then treats them with his innovations. He releases DVDs showing all the gory details. Patients screaming from agony, writhing on the floor with pain etc. He shows distorted, misshapen bodies, limbs, with tumours sticking out of the body. He says that many of his patients die that way, by cancer induced by him.

But then he shows other DVDs, where there the same distorted misshapen bodies, patients in mortal agony. Then he shows the progressive improvements as a result of his cure, finally showing the completely cured patients. He says he had to sacrifice thousands of patients before he could find the cure. He gives the cure to the world for free, no charge.

Now, Dr. Mad will be charged with mass murder, with crime against humanity, convicted and sentenced, that is a given. But what should the world do about his invention, cure for cancer? Does the world adopt the cure, thereby tacitly approving what he did? Or does the world ignore the cure, thereby letting millions of cancer patients die every year, some of them in agony?

There is no answer to this dilemma, we can only hope that it never happens. If you or your loved one is stricken with terminal cancer, would you use Dr. Mad’s cure, thereby tacitly approving al the atrocities he committed?

 

[CDNBear]

Use it. It's a simple answer.

 

[Tonington]

Wouldn't you consider that their deaths were all in vain if the cure isn't used? As atrocious as that situation is, their deaths do produce something of great import.

 

[CDNBear]

Wouldn't you consider that their deaths were all in vain if the cure isn't used? As atrocious as that situation is, their deaths do produce something of great import.

Bingo!

 

[Tonington]

Also, it's not really a paradox of science. It's an ethics question. Might make a good one for medical school interviews.

 

[CDNBear]

Also, it's not really a paradox of science. It's an ethics question. Might make a good one for medical school interviews.

Ain't that the truth.

It's not uncommon for Link to be incorrect.

 

[VanIsle]

I got the idea for this thread from one of Ron's post about experimentation by the Nazis. This is an unresolved paradox in science. Let me paint a vivid, lurid picture for you.

There is this brilliant, innovative scientist, let us call him doctor Mad. He is also filthy rich, another Bill Gates or Warren Buffet (let us say he inherited his wealth).

He has been working in seclusion in his estate on a small, remote island which he owns. After 20 years of painstaking research, he releases his results to the world, he has found a cure for cancer.

What he does is that he induces cancer in his human subjects (obtained by kidnapping, false promises etc.) and then treats them with his innovations. He releases DVDs showing all the gory details. Patients screaming from agony, writhing on the floor with pain etc. He shows distorted, misshapen bodies, limbs, with tumours sticking out of the body. He says that many of his patients die that way, by cancer induced by him.

But then he shows other DVDs, where there the same distorted misshapen bodies, patients in mortal agony. Then he shows the progressive improvements as a result of his cure, finally showing the completely cured patients. He says he had to sacrifice thousands of patients before he could find the cure. He gives the cure to the world for free, no charge.

Now, Dr. Mad will be charged with mass murder, with crime against humanity, convicted and sentenced, that is a given. But what should the world do about his invention, cure for cancer? Does the world adopt the cure, thereby tacitly approving what he did? Or does the world ignore the cure, thereby letting millions of cancer patients die every year, some of them in agony?

There is no answer to this dilemma, we can only hope that it never happens. If you or your loved one is stricken with terminal cancer, would you use Dr. Mad’s cure, thereby tacitly approving al the atrocities he committed?

Using crime as a means to an end does not absolve the criminal. He still commited murder and must pay for the crime. It's like using religion as a reason for war. He used "science" as a reason to kill.

 

[ironsides]

It would be criminal for the world not to adopt the cure. Tell Doctor Mad what ever it take to get hold of the cure then lock him up. It is for the greater good that we use the cure.

 

[AnnaG]

roflmao
As the testing had already been done, unethical as it was, there would be no rational grounds for not using the cure. Try reading "Frankenstein" or "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde". Your "dilemma" has been around for a long time.
BTW, there are cures for cancers. There are many cancers.

 

[AnnaG]

Wouldn't you consider that their deaths were all in vain if the cure isn't used? As atrocious as that situation is, their deaths do produce something of great import.

Exactly.

 

[karrie]

well, I can't read the OP, what with having the poster on ignore and all, but, from what I see quoted by VanIsle, it seems pretty straight forward.

Amend for those deaths by putting the man through the justice system, and use the cure to do good. Simple. I don't see how it's a conundrum for any reasoning human being.

 

[AnnaG]

I got the idea for this thread from one of Ron's post about experimentation by the Nazis. This is an unresolved paradox in science. Let me paint a vivid, lurid picture for you.

There is this brilliant, innovative scientist, let us call him doctor Mad. He is also filthy rich, another Bill Gates or Warren Buffet (let us say he inherited his wealth).

He has been working in seclusion in his estate on a small, remote island which he owns. After 20 years of painstaking research, he releases his results to the world, he has found a cure for cancer.

What he does is that he induces cancer in his human subjects (obtained by kidnapping, false promises etc.) and then treats them with his innovations. He releases DVDs showing all the gory details. Patients screaming from agony, writhing on the floor with pain etc. He shows distorted, misshapen bodies, limbs, with tumours sticking out of the body. He says that many of his patients die that way, by cancer induced by him.

But then he shows other DVDs, where there the same distorted misshapen bodies, patients in mortal agony. Then he shows the progressive improvements as a result of his cure, finally showing the completely cured patients. He says he had to sacrifice thousands of patients before he could find the cure. He gives the cure to the world for free, no charge.

Now, Dr. Mad will be charged with mass murder, with crime against humanity, convicted and sentenced, that is a given. But what should the world do about his invention, cure for cancer? Does the world adopt the cure, thereby tacitly approving what he did? Or does the world ignore the cure, thereby letting millions of cancer patients die every year, some of them in agony?

There is no answer to this dilemma, we can only hope that it never happens. If you or your loved one is stricken with terminal cancer, would you use Dr. Mad’s cure, thereby tacitly approving al the atrocities he committed?

Here you go, Karrie.

 

[earth_as_one]

Most of what we know about treating hypothermia is based on Nazi experiments conducted on people, many of whom perished during the "experiments".
Medical Experiments of the Holocaust and Nazi Medicine

People can be good or evil. Knowledge and science is neutral.

 

[gerryh]

I don't see how it's a conundrum for any reasoning human being.

and theres the problem right there.

 

[AnnaG]

Quoting karrie I don't see how it's a conundrum for any reasoning human being.

and theres the problem right there.

lol.

 

[Niflmir]

This hypothetical implies that the cure could not have been found without diabolical means. Of course we would use the cure, but imprison the scientist. There are more ethical ways of achieving the same thing, and we need to send the message that those means are wrong.

There is no shortage of people with natural cancer, for instance.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This hypothetical implies that the cure could not have been found without diabolical means. Of course we would use the cure, but imprison the scientist. There are more ethical ways of achieving the same thing, and we need to send the message that those means are wrong.

There is no shortage of people with natural cancer, for instance.

Sure there are ethical ways of doing it, but then there would be no dilemma. Anyway, the consensus seems to be that the cure should be used, so I am free to argue the other side.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

There indeed are two sides to the issue. The question is, does the end justify the means? If somebody achieves desirable results, does that mean that what they did to achieve that end was justified?

Bush did get a lot of heat just for that reason; he was accused of torturing the Al Qaeda prisoners. Bush associates claim that they got useful information out of the torture (and they claimed they don’t torture anyway). But is the torture justified if useful information is obtained by it? Some say yes, some say no. It is not an easy question to answer.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Another aspect is, what message does that send to other mad scientists? If his cure is accepted, will that encourage other mad scientists? The scientists who perhaps don’t have the brilliance, inventiveness of Dr. Mad, but have the same thirst, same desire to torture, to maim, to kill.

The cancer cure will be commonly known as Dr. Mad’s cure, and eventually Dr. Mad will be remembered as the benefactor of humanity, somebody who saved millions of lives (while perhaps destroying, killing a few thousand in the process). That may well encourage other mad scientists to move ahead with their insane schemes involving torture, killing of patients (perhaps with no end results to show for it).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And finally, is it permissible to use up human beings, to kill human lives that way in order for the greater good, in order to save millions? The prolifers would say no. They are currently opposed to fetal tissue research (research on fetal tissue obtained from abortion), embryonic stem cell research etc.

Their claim is that using aborted fetuses of research cheapens the human life, makes it more acceptable to kill (get an abortion) and therefore must not be permitted. While I don’t’ agree with that position, I can certainly see their point. I imagine prolifers would be strongly opposed to using the cure, because it cheapens the human life. The fact that it cures the cancer does not justify its use. The fact that fetal tissue research or embryonic stem cell research may lead to the cure of diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease etc. does not sway them in the least.

I can see people holding passionate views on both sides of the issue. We are progressive, liberal here in Canada, so we probably will come to a speedy resolution of the issue (like we did with same sex marriage or abortion). But in USA, they will be arguing for decades whether the cure should be used, without coming to any resolution.

In fact, it probably will be the abortion debate all over again, with Republican presidents banning the use of Dr. Mad’s cure, while Democratic presidents permitting it. Same as currently Republican presidents ban the use of federal money for stem cell research or fetal tissue research.

I don’t think there is a good answer to the dilemma, one must choose the lesser of two evils. Either one must accept the cure (thereby cheapening human life, perhaps encouraging other mad scientists, and turning an abomination of a human being into a hero, a Savior of mankind) or reject the cure (thereby letting millions die who would otherwise have lived).

As I said, the only solution is to hope that it doesn’t happen.