5 ms·

Except "do no harm" is woefully inadequate because it fails to take into account opportunity cost. They are doing TONS of harm by failing to allow willing peopl

Except "do no harm" is woefully inadequate because it fails to take into account opportunity cost. They are doing TONS of harm by failing to allow willing people to try new medicine and advance science and the human race, all because they have some warped sense of morality that's got horse blinders on.

robotresearcher 11y ago
They are absolutely not ignoring opportunity cost. This issue has been discussed very carefully by sophisticated people for thousands of years. The current system does allow for experimentation, but provides a conservative framework for it. It's huge personal hubris to announce that you know better and they haven't thought it through. Which is one of the things the approach is aimed to protect us from.
- will_pseudonym 11y ago
  I won't debate you on whether I am correct. I will only state that science is (by definition) advanced ONLY by people over time who knew better, held up by everyone else hadn't thought it through. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disease_and_Helicobacter_pylori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disea... June 12: Marshall intentionally consumes H. pylori and becomes ill. He takes antibiotics and is relieved of his symptoms. That's personal hubris! :)
  - jeremyjh 11y ago
    There is a selection bias here, you hear about the successes but not so much about all the crackpots that increased suffering needlessly. This article is about one such case, in case you didn't notice.
- Alex3917 11y ago
  > The current system does allow for experimentation, but provides a conservative framework for it. Which most people seem to think is wrong. The vast majority of treatments that get prescribed by doctors are unproven in terms of safety and efficacy. The main differences between the status quo and a proper experiment is that we're not recording any data or allowing for informed consent.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

robotresearcher 11y ago

They are absolutely not ignoring opportunity cost. This issue has been discussed very carefully by sophisticated people for thousands of years. The current system does allow for experimentation, but provides a conservative framework for it. It's huge personal hubris to announce that you know better and they haven't thought it through. Which is one of the things the approach is aimed to protect us from.

will_pseudonym 11y ago
I won't debate you on whether I am correct. I will only state that science is (by definition) advanced ONLY by people over time who knew better, held up by everyone else hadn't thought it through. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disease_and_Helicobacter_pylori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disea... June 12: Marshall intentionally consumes H. pylori and becomes ill. He takes antibiotics and is relieved of his symptoms. That's personal hubris! :)
- jeremyjh 11y ago
  There is a selection bias here, you hear about the successes but not so much about all the crackpots that increased suffering needlessly. This article is about one such case, in case you didn't notice.
Alex3917 11y ago
> The current system does allow for experimentation, but provides a conservative framework for it. Which most people seem to think is wrong. The vast majority of treatments that get prescribed by doctors are unproven in terms of safety and efficacy. The main differences between the status quo and a proper experiment is that we're not recording any data or allowing for informed consent.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]