My husband would leave it up to me as to whether the cure would be used. He wouldn't even presume to speak for me unless he had my sayso.
Now, THOSE should be your dilemmas.
An Unresolved Paradox in Science.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
- Status
Now, THOSE should be your dilemmas.
Are the Nazis known more for their experiments into the endurances of the human body or are they known more for their atrocities?
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?
Indeed there has been a case, Tonington. While I don’t agree with it, prolifers would say that there were definite ethical breaches when FDA approved RU486, the abortion pill.
As to patent, I am assuming there is no patent. That is why I said that he gives the cure to the world, no charge.
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.
Indeed, the doctor’s claims would have to be verified. Doctors would have to conduct trials to that effect, with cancer patients. At each stage, there will be strong opposition by prolife factions.
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.
When it comes to verification of the claims, yes. But there is still the problem of the original discovery. And discovery owes itself to unethical circumstances? Isn’t that an understatement? It owes itself to mayhem, torture and murder.
It's pretty simple. The tragedy is worse if the deaths and suffering were all for naught.
That is one way of looking at it. Another way is if the drug is tested, approved and commercially manufactured, it turns a mad, insane doctor into a hero, into a Saviour for many people. Again, he could possibly act as an example for the others.
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?
Now here, it is pure selfishness on my part. I wouldn’t use it on me for ethical considerations. I don’t want the torture and death of several thousand people on my conscious, I don’t’ want to think that I am alive because of the sufferings by them. And as my wife and son can live quite well without me, there is no need for me to stay alive at any cost.
But I wouldn’t want my wife dead, I would want her alive besides me. As to my son, all ethical considerations vanish when it is the question of his well being. So my actions would be based partly on ethics and partly on self interest.
Indeed there has been a case, Tonington. While I don’t agree with it, prolifers would say that there were definite ethical breaches when FDA approved RU486, the abortion pill.
As to patent, I am assuming there is no patent. That is why I said that he gives the cure to the world, no charge.
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.
Indeed, the doctor’s claims would have to be verified. Doctors would have to conduct trials to that effect, with cancer patients. At each stage, there will be strong opposition by prolife factions.
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.
When it comes to verification of the claims, yes. But there is still the problem of the original discovery. And discovery owes itself to unethical circumstances? Isn’t that an understatement? It owes itself to mayhem, torture and murder.
It's pretty simple. The tragedy is worse if the deaths and suffering were all for naught.
That is one way of looking at it. Another way is if the drug is tested, approved and commercially manufactured, it turns a mad, insane doctor into a hero, into a Saviour for many people. Again, he could possibly act as an example for the others.
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?
Now here, it is pure selfishness on my part. I wouldn’t use it on me for ethical considerations. I don’t want the torture and death of several thousand people on my conscious, I don’t’ want to think that I am alive because of the sufferings by them. And as my wife and son can live quite well without me, there is no need for me to stay alive at any cost.
But I wouldn’t want my wife dead, I would want her alive besides me. As to my son, all ethical considerations vanish when it is the question of his well being. So my actions would be based partly on ethics and partly on self interest.
The answer is obvious: the bread should be thrown away because while you were involved with your dilemma, the bread had gotten moldy and dry. In the meantime the police would have thrown the murdering thirf in jail and the rest of society probably would have made sure the kids had gotten something to eat.
Red herrings. The man would be imprisoned and the cure used, regardless of when he told people what he had done or when it would be available for use. Conducting trials before allowing general use is not an issue as there will always be volunteers to test the effects of new drugs.
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.
Many prolifers don’t agree with you, karrie. In USA there is strong opposition to embryonic stem cell research. In USA prolifers don’t want embryonic stem cell research to go ahead, no matter what kind of cures that may yield. By extrapolation, in my opinion many prolifers would be opposed to using Dr. Mad’s discovery, for fear that it would legitimize murder and torture.
Many prolifers don’t agree with you, karrie. In USA there is strong opposition to embryonic stem cell research. In USA prolifers don’t want embryonic stem cell research to go ahead, no matter what kind of cures that may yield. By extrapolation, in my opinion many prolifers would be opposed to using Dr. Mad’s discovery, for fear that it would legitimize murder and torture.
Wrong....but this is far from the first time.
The big question that stem cell opponents bring up is.......why use embrionic stem cells for research when there are other ways of getting stem cells?
BTW, not all opponents to embrionic stem cell research are anti-abortion. They look at it from more of an ethical point of view. What are the possibilities/probabilities of abusing the supply of embrionic stem cells, being one such ethical question raised.
lol Also using the same "logic" we should sidetrack the topic of the thread after seeing how dense we are viewed by others in proposing a pseudo-dilemma by going off on a tangent about embryonic stem cell research. lol
lmao and then we should tuck in our tails and scuttle off to another thread, never to return.
I don't believe embryonic stem cell research was a tangent. I'm pretty sure that is what the thread was about. Joey just tried to dress it differently. That's what trolls do.
precisely. Some see a potential for encouraging women to make decisions with their body that are NOT based on what's right for them, but instead based on the medical community's desire to harvest from them. There are a variety of reasons for wishing science would take a different route with supplying stem cell research. Of course, not everyone can see that under one opinion there can be a variety of reasons behind holding it.
Devious little sod, huh? I've heard people with psychoses are like that: MPDs, ASPDs, narcissists, etc.
So, what was the ethical guideline they breached? Simply asserting that one group with a very specific outlook is proof of a breach isn't enough. Was it something in the Declaration of Helsinki? The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects?
So your hypothetical has no basis in reality then. A drug cannot simply be prescribed by a MD. It has to be approved first, and for that, they require lab results. For those to be valid, they need to be compliant with the guidelines I mentioned above, or other applicable country specific guidelines.
So, that means a pharmaceutical will need to replicate the mad scientists results, at considerable cost. But who owns the patent? Who would spend hundreds, potentially into the billion+ of $'s to complete a study, without the patent? Would it be a government? Google ' "dichloroacetate" and "University of Alberta" '.
Your obsession with the prolife movement is again causing you difficulty. Pro-life protesters cannot stop people from conducting proper research trials. In the replication of the mad scientists results, there would be nothing unethical.
Which exists regardless of whether or not someone does anything with the discovery. The original research isn't unethical, only it's subsequent application by Dr. Mad... So duplicating that, sans the suffering is not unethical.
Possibly. So what? If the hypothetical hypothetical scientist is compelled, then they probably lacked the ethical standing in the first place, and is likely to be on the fringes of the science community and already over the line. What I'm saying is, they don't need any more influence.
I don't think they would be jumping for joy to go to jail afterwards either.
Yes, that is quite selfish indeed.
So, you're essentially saying the ends do justify the means.
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.
It usually does happen over the weekend, when the moderators are away.
Nah!!! Building stawmen is a good business .....It keeps threads going forever...like the energizer bunny
- Status