4 ms·

Let's not beat around the bush here. The issue is whether people have the right to take these risks for themselves. No one makes you sign up for a medical tri

Let's not beat around the bush here. The issue is whether people have the right to take these risks for themselves. No one makes you sign up for a medical trial.

abruzzi 11y ago
But most people who sign up for medical trials are not terribly well informed of how dangerous the drug is. They are also usually from the poorest part of society (except terminally sick people hoping the latest trial may bring a cure.)
clort 11y ago
Actually, I don't much like this attitude. The company offers between 100 and 4500 euro to participate in trials (max earnings 4500 per year), though I don't know what they offered for this particular trial. We can wonder why people sign up for this when the only recompense offered is [a small amount of] money but its likely due to a desire for money, caused by a lack of it -- we can only suppose that if these folk had enough money already then they wouldn't have signed up to this. It would be interesting to see the demographics of the participants of drug trials like these and I'm guessing that excess wealth and ennui aren't significant features there. Its always worth keeping in mind that choices which may seem to be unpalatable to you are likely to be much less so to other people for reasons they don't necessarily have any control over.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  So because they're poor, they shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions? Honestly, the philosophy would be more equitable if we just extended this thinking to the whole population, right? Let's ban drinking, ice-climbing, skydiving, smoking, sweet cars, and burgers, just to get started. Because we know better than them. The risks are understood for medical trials. Maybe they're not acceptable to me, but they are to someone else. Who am I to tell another man what risks he can take with his own life?
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > So because they're poor, they shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions? I'd phrase it differently. Because they're poor, a certain level of financial incentive to participate in a dangerous activity may fundamentally become coercion.
    - a_puppy 11y ago
      You're pulling a rhetorical trick with the definition of the word "coercion". Coercion usually means forcing someone to do something without giving them the option to be left alone. That kind of coercion is widely agreed to be bad, so the term "coercion" has a strong negative connotation. Paying test subjects to take experimental drugs is not coercion in that sense, and it's not widely agreed to be bad. You're trying to make it sound bad by expanding the definition of coercion to cover it, but you haven't provided a justification for why this kind of "coercion" should be considered bad--except that it kind of resembles "coercion" in the usual sense. Unfortunately, this kind of rhetorical trick is pretty effective. My options for responding are to either argue with you about what the word "coercion" means (which is a meaningless argument) or to claim that "some kinds of coercion are OK" (which sounds really bad taken out of context). But even though it's an effective argument, it doesn't contribute to the conversation; people who already agree with you will think it sounds convincing, but people who don't agree won't be convinced. Would you consider elaborating on your argument by explaining why you think that paying patients to participate in drug trials has the same negative features as "coercion" in the usual sense?
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        I'm especially skeptical when the solution to the supposed "coercion" is good old-fashioned real coercion by the state.
  - gus_massa 11y ago
    What about allowing people to sell a kidney or part of the liver? An a cornea?

Let's not beat around the bush here. The issue is whether people have the right to take these risks for themselves. No one makes you sign up for a medical trial.

abruzzi 11y ago

But most people who sign up for medical trials are not terribly well informed of how dangerous the drug is. They are also usually from the poorest part of society (except terminally sick people hoping the latest trial may bring a cure.)

clort 11y ago

Actually, I don't much like this attitude. The company offers between 100 and 4500 euro to participate in trials (max earnings 4500 per year), though I don't know what they offered for this particular trial. We can wonder why people sign up for this when the only recompense offered is [a small amount of] money but its likely due to a desire for money, caused by a lack of it -- we can only suppose that if these folk had enough money already then they wouldn't have signed up to this. It would be interesting to see the demographics of the participants of drug trials like these and I'm guessing that excess wealth and ennui aren't significant features there. Its always worth keeping in mind that choices which may seem to be unpalatable to you are likely to be much less so to other people for reasons they don't necessarily have any control over.

marcoperaza 11y ago
So because they're poor, they shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions? Honestly, the philosophy would be more equitable if we just extended this thinking to the whole population, right? Let's ban drinking, ice-climbing, skydiving, smoking, sweet cars, and burgers, just to get started. Because we know better than them. The risks are understood for medical trials. Maybe they're not acceptable to me, but they are to someone else. Who am I to tell another man what risks he can take with his own life?
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > So because they're poor, they shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions? I'd phrase it differently. Because they're poor, a certain level of financial incentive to participate in a dangerous activity may fundamentally become coercion.
  - a_puppy 11y ago
    You're pulling a rhetorical trick with the definition of the word "coercion". Coercion usually means forcing someone to do something without giving them the option to be left alone. That kind of coercion is widely agreed to be bad, so the term "coercion" has a strong negative connotation. Paying test subjects to take experimental drugs is not coercion in that sense, and it's not widely agreed to be bad. You're trying to make it sound bad by expanding the definition of coercion to cover it, but you haven't provided a justification for why this kind of "coercion" should be considered bad--except that it kind of resembles "coercion" in the usual sense. Unfortunately, this kind of rhetorical trick is pretty effective. My options for responding are to either argue with you about what the word "coercion" means (which is a meaningless argument) or to claim that "some kinds of coercion are OK" (which sounds really bad taken out of context). But even though it's an effective argument, it doesn't contribute to the conversation; people who already agree with you will think it sounds convincing, but people who don't agree won't be convinced. Would you consider elaborating on your argument by explaining why you think that paying patients to participate in drug trials has the same negative features as "coercion" in the usual sense?
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      I'm especially skeptical when the solution to the supposed "coercion" is good old-fashioned real coercion by the state.
- gus_massa 11y ago
  What about allowing people to sell a kidney or part of the liver? An a cornea?