3 ms·

No, it's not, but your point definitely is irrelevant. You see, it's my body, so I can put whatever I want in it, be it aspirin, heroin, thalidomide or cyanide.

by jsn 16y ago

No, it's not, but your point definitely is irrelevant. You see, it's my body, so I can put whatever I want in it, be it aspirin, heroin, thalidomide or cyanide. And yeah, I may wish to make an educated choice about that, but then again, I don't have to.

pyre 16y ago
True, but when you're talking medicines, you may not have a choice in the matter. e.g. You come into the emergency room unconscious, what medicines should the doctors be allowed to use?
- jsn 16y ago
  Basically, if someone is going to make a decision affecting my body while I'm unconscious, I'd rather have someone I picked for that job to do it (like, I don't know, my doctor or my wife or my dad or my friend or even my insurance company) than some bureaucrat in FDA. But that's not quite the issue in question, eh? My understanding is, you can't get the unapproved anti-venom even if you are conscious and you are about to die without it anyway, by doctors opinion.
  - pyre 16y ago
    I realize that you still can't get it when you are conscious. I'm just saying that 'personal choice' isn't the only weighing factor here. If you come into the emergency room and you are unconscious, who says that you are with someone (wife,friend,etc) or that there is enough time to try and get in touch with your doctor? I personally think that the FDA approval process is bogus too. I'm just trying to expand the discussion a bit.
    - jsn 16y ago
      I was just trying not to drift too much into complicated parts of the problem, since the society is obviously unable to fix even the most obvious and simple parts of it. Yeah, maybe there should be some rules about corner cases like that (what to do with you if you are unconscious and there is nobody to ask about what you'd want to be done to you). And maybe one way to get those rules written and enforced is to have people on government payroll for that. Or maybe we should just leave it to the ER folks. But, frankly, I think it would be nice to fix the obvious big wrongs first, and worry about all this stuff later.
nitrogen 16y ago
Since you include heroin and cyanide, would you have some kind of provision that prohibits people from taking certain substances if they've demonstrated by their behavior that those substances would cause them to harm other members of society? In other words, should we allow susceptible people to become junkies if they end up doing something really really bad while they're under the influence?
- jsn 16y ago
  I'm not sure there is a one-size-fits-all solution to that. But, in general, I think that what matters is the real damage done. I mean, if you do harm others, you should be punished/restricted, and if you do harm others repeatedly under the influence of some substance (be it snorted cocaine or internally produced adrenaline), you should perhaps be punished/restricted more. But the punishment/restriction should always be a response to the harm done to others, not to whatever the person does to her own body.

by jsn 16y ago

pyre 16y ago

True, but when you're talking medicines, you may not have a choice in the matter. e.g. You come into the emergency room unconscious, what medicines should the doctors be allowed to use?

jsn 16y ago
Basically, if someone is going to make a decision affecting my body while I'm unconscious, I'd rather have someone I picked for that job to do it (like, I don't know, my doctor or my wife or my dad or my friend or even my insurance company) than some bureaucrat in FDA. But that's not quite the issue in question, eh? My understanding is, you can't get the unapproved anti-venom even if you are conscious and you are about to die without it anyway, by doctors opinion.
- pyre 16y ago
  I realize that you still can't get it when you are conscious. I'm just saying that 'personal choice' isn't the only weighing factor here. If you come into the emergency room and you are unconscious, who says that you are with someone (wife,friend,etc) or that there is enough time to try and get in touch with your doctor? I personally think that the FDA approval process is bogus too. I'm just trying to expand the discussion a bit.
  - jsn 16y ago
    I was just trying not to drift too much into complicated parts of the problem, since the society is obviously unable to fix even the most obvious and simple parts of it. Yeah, maybe there should be some rules about corner cases like that (what to do with you if you are unconscious and there is nobody to ask about what you'd want to be done to you). And maybe one way to get those rules written and enforced is to have people on government payroll for that. Or maybe we should just leave it to the ER folks. But, frankly, I think it would be nice to fix the obvious big wrongs first, and worry about all this stuff later.

nitrogen 16y ago

Since you include heroin and cyanide, would you have some kind of provision that prohibits people from taking certain substances if they've demonstrated by their behavior that those substances would cause them to harm other members of society? In other words, should we allow susceptible people to become junkies if they end up doing something really really bad while they're under the influence?

jsn 16y ago
I'm not sure there is a one-size-fits-all solution to that. But, in general, I think that what matters is the real damage done. I mean, if you do harm others, you should be punished/restricted, and if you do harm others repeatedly under the influence of some substance (be it snorted cocaine or internally produced adrenaline), you should perhaps be punished/restricted more. But the punishment/restriction should always be a response to the harm done to others, not to whatever the person does to her own body.