An Unresolved Paradox in Science.

[SirJosephPorter]

As to whether I would personally accept the cure, that would depend upon the circumstances. If I had terminal cancer myself, I probably would not use the cure. I have lived full life, I must die some time (if not now in 5, 10, 20 years), and I wouldn’t want the torture and death of several thousand human beings on my conscious.

On the other hand, if my wife gets terminal cancer, I might be tempted to use the cure. If that happen in 20 years’ time (when we will both be around eighty), probably not.

But if our son is stricken with cancer, there is no question, I definitely would support the use of the cure. My son is more important than anything else, than any ethical consideration. So it depends upon the circumstances.

 

[Niflmir]

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.

Using the cure in no way implies that the ends justifies the means. Not imprisoning said scientist would mean that the end justifies the means.

Everyone here is saying the end does not justify the means. Everyone here is saying they would still use the cure. Nobody seems to see a dilemma there, because there is not one.

If I steal money to buy bread to feed my family, do you make them throw up the bread when you catch me? No, you throw me in prison; there are better ways to make money or get bread.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Everyone here is saying the end does not justify the means. Everyone here is saying they would still use the cure. Nobody seems to see a dilemma there, because there is not one.

Nobody is going to say that end justifies the means, Niflmir. But that is how some would see it. It is the same argument prolifers advance during stem cell debate. They say that using stem cell in research justifies abortion, it at least gives the impression of the end justifying the means.

Nobody has to say that explicitly. But if the cure is accepted, if Dr. Mad comes to be knows as the Saviour of humankind (and after several decades he will, his atrocities will pass into history, his cure will endure), some will interpret it to mean that end justifies the means.

 

[Liberalman]

I am sure that all the experiments were repeated on mice by now where the scientists came to the same conclusion as Dr. Mad.

They would never admit this but this would be considered experiment laundering which converts experiments through torture to clean experiments

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If I steal money to buy bread to feed my family, do you make them throw up the bread when you catch me? No, you throw me in prison; there are better ways to make money or get bread.

Niflmir, that is not a fair analogy to Dr. Mad, for two reasons. One is that during stealing of the bread, nobody was hurt. The second is that here the cure has already been administered, in that the bread has already been eaten.

Let me give you an appropriate analogy. Suppose during the act of stealing, you shoot and kill the store owner. When you are caught, bread is found in your possession. You explain to the cops that your family has been starving, your children have not eaten for days. You stole the bread for them.

Now the question is, should the bread be given to your children, because they are starving? The bread properly belongs to the store owner. This is the proper analogy, because here again you have to choose the lesser of two evils. The dilemma is, if the bread is given to the rightful owner, your children starve, while if bread is given to your children, the rightful owner is deprived of his property and he may well sue the police department for doing so.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am sure that all the experiments were repeated on mice by now where the scientists came to the same conclusion as Dr. Mad.

They would never admit this but this would be considered experiment laundering which converts experiments through torture to clean experiments

Indeed, Liberalman, this is the other side that I was talking about. I know you re prolife, and you took what I consider to be the prolife position in this case. There are no easy answers.

 

[ironsides]

To the millions he saved, he would a hero immediately. The big question is did anyone have knowledge of what he was doing during the experimental phase and did nothing, or did the world find out how he obtained his results after they started using this miracle treatment. Then the question what to do with him would arise. If he is dead, how should he be remembered.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

To the millions he saved, he would a hero immediately. The big question is did anyone have knowledge of what he was doing during the experimental phase and did nothing, or did the world find out how he obtained his results after they started using this miracle treatment. Then the question what to do with him would arise. If he is dead, how should he be remembered.

Ironsides, in my scenario (I want to make it as difficult ethically as possible), the world did not know what he was doing while he did his research, he was working on his estate on a remote island which he owned.

But then he explained to the world what he did, explained all the torture (inducing cancer in a healthy human being is torture) and killing he did. Then he offered the cure to the world.

So the world is aware of his atrocities before the cure is used. And of course the cure cannot be used immediately anyway, there is the process of FDA approval etc. Some drug company has to manufacture it on a large scale. So yes, the world is aware of the atrocities before the cure is ever used.

Then the question is, should it be used? By that of course I mean, should a company be given license to manufacture it, should FDA give it an approval, should the doctors conduct trials to verify his results etc.

 

[ironsides]

By your scenario, he is a madman and should be locked up for treatment. The cure still should be used and not be ignored, it is to important. Yes, get it licensed and to those who need it ASAP.

 

[Niflmir]

One is that during stealing of the bread, nobody was hurt.

stealing, nobody hurt.

What? Stealing doesn't hurt people? Okay, consider yourself robbed.

 

[TenPenny]

This is an unresolved paradox in science.

That's not a paradox, it's simply an ethics question.

 

[Tonington]

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?

No, the ends do not justify the means. There are other ways to test drug efficacy and toxicology without inducing cancer. In no way do desirable results mean the methods were justified. That is a logical failure to even suggest.

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 message would be, that society doesn't seem to appreciate your dubious methods. So don't expect accolades and fame. Don't expect anything but being treated as a pariah and criminal.

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.

No. You don't have to be a pro-lifer either. As Nif already pointed out to you, there is no false dilemma like you propose here. The options aren't just: find a cure by killing humans and other atrocious actions, and no cure at all. Researchers around the world have had results without throwing away their ethics.

As to whether I would personally accept the cure, that would depend upon the circumstances. If I had terminal cancer myself, I probably would not use the cure. I have lived full life, I must die some time (if not now in 5, 10, 20 years), and I wouldn’t want the torture and death of several thousand human beings on my conscious.

Presumably you wouldn't use the cure because you don't wish to sanction the death of other humans in the search for the cure. So that's an ethical position. But then you say you would use it if your wife had cancer. So, this appears to me to be a selfish reason that is overcoming your own ethical viewpoint.

It seems to me the ethical dilemma here is entirely yours.

 

[TenPenny]

Considering that we all seem happy with the concept of heart transplants, I think this question has been pretty much answered already.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Considering that we all seem happy with the concept of heart transplants, I think this question has been pretty much answered already.

And just who is hurt in a heart transplant, TenPenny?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What? Stealing doesn't hurt people? Okay, consider yourself robbed.

I think you know what I mean, Nilfmir. I meant nobody is physically hurt if somebody steals a loaf of bread, it is not like violent robbery or murder. That is why the analogous situation to Dr. Mad’s case would be if somebody gets hurt or killed during the robbery of the bread.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, the ends do not justify the means. There are other ways to test drug efficacy and toxicology without inducing cancer. In no way do desirable results mean the methods were justified. That is a logical failure to even suggest.

That is just the impression this will create with some people, Tonington. If FDA approves the drug, if companies start manufacturing it, at least some people are going to think that the end here justified the means.

The message would be, that society doesn't seem to appreciate your dubious methods. So don't expect accolades and fame. Don't expect anything but being treated as a pariah and criminal.

No, the message here would be, expect to be treated as a pariah and criminal AND expect accolades and fame. If Dr. Mad’s cure is used, many people will regard Dr. Mad as their hero, their Saviour, especially the cancer victims and their relatives. They will shower accolades, awards and praise on him, even as he remains locked up in prison.

The options aren't just: find a cure by killing humans and other atrocious actions, and no cure at all. Researchers around the world have had results without throwing away their ethics.

Sure they would, but not the scenario I have pictured.

Presumably you wouldn't use the cure because you don't wish to sanction the death of other humans in the search for the cure. So that's an ethical position. But then you say you would use it if your wife had cancer. So, this appears to me to be a selfish reason that is overcoming your own ethical viewpoint.

I told you, there are no easy answers here. If government tries to give approval to the cure, it will be vigorously opposed every step of the way (granting license to manufacture, giving FDA approval conducting trials etc.) by the other side, those who don’t want the cure used. We have had several example of this already. Fetal tissue research, embryonic stem cell research etc.

 

[Tonington]

That is just the impression this will create with some people, Tonington. If FDA approves the drug, if companies start manufacturing it, at least some people are going to think that the end here justified the means.

That's all contingent on a big if. Have you ever known of an FDA approved drug that involved breaches in ethical guidelines? Who is going to manufacture it? Who owns the patent?

What would likely happen if someone could get the patent (again, another huge if,) is that a company would have to do it's own trials to present the evidence to FDA, HealthCanada, etc.

Nobody had to be harmed, all subjects were legally able to give consent, and the resulting drug is now above the board. The discovery still owes itself to unethical circumstances.

It's pretty simple. The tragedy is worse if the deaths and suffering were all for naught.

Sure they would, but not the scenario I have pictured.

Reality trumps hypothetical.

I told you, there are no easy answers here. If government tries to give approval to the cure, it will be vigorously opposed every step of the way (granting license to manufacture, giving FDA approval conducting trials etc.) by the other side, those who don’t want the cure used. We have had several example of this already. Fetal tissue research, embryonic stem cell research etc.

I'm more interested in your actual dilemma. How could you justify using it on your wife, and not on yourself? Does she contribute more to society? Would you miss her too much? Would she not miss you in the same fashion? How do you rationalize your moral dilemma here?

 

[karrie]

It seems to me the ethical dilemma here is entirely yours.

looks that way doesn't it.

Accepting the cure is not the same thing as sanctioning the way it was found.

This is a very real, modern day ethical issue for anyone who is both pro-life, and suffering an auto-immune disease. I've made no secret of the fact that while I do not sanction abortion, if some cure for a life time of pain and exhaustion is found through stem cell research as it currently takes place, I am surely going to take it and live a healthy life. If some breakthrough is found for my son's asthma, I'm giving it. If some wonder drug for Parkinson's or Alzheimer's is found (as these kill most people in my family), I will shout with joy.

Not supporting the way the research takes place, and turning away the cure, are two different beasts.

 

[AnnaG]

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?

There is only a dilemma for you. As it has been pointed out there are ethical ways of dealing with the problem that could have been used, but the scientist used an unethical method and so should be vilified. NOT using the treatment regardless of how it was developed would be unethical.
It has nothing to do with ends justifying means unless the scientist had an ethical bone in his body in the first place but chose an unethical manner of coming up with the treatment.
Don't you ever talk to your wife about medical ethical issues? Or is it that you can't comprehend anyone else's pov?

 

[AnnaG]

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).

Who invented the zipper?
Who invented sulfadrugs?
Who invented the curling rock?
Who discovered the alpha helix?
If you can answer those questions without researching (cheating) then your point makes sense.
As most people aren't that immersed into science, most people only remember a handful of scientists.