3 ms·
I hate making moral arguments, but dang. I'm not sure it's entirely utilitarian. People like to feel there is meaning to their life, some sort of story. Given
by DanielBMarkham 10y ago
I hate making moral arguments, but dang. I'm not sure it's entirely utilitarian.
People like to feel there is meaning to their life, some sort of story. Given a chance to directly contribute to science in an understandable way in their last days? I think for many it is the most humane thing to do. (But not all, of course) [1] Note that the key here is understandable, which would eliminate double-blind studies.
1. Related -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_Search_for_Meaning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_Search_for_Meaning
- notahacker 10y agoQuite apart from the ethical concerns, I can't really imagine a shared characteristic in a set of test subjects for an experimental procedure/treatment that could undermine the results more than expected to die soon for unrelated reason
- DanielBMarkham 10y agoThat's a sample size and actuarial question.
- mcherm 10y agoNo. Confounding variables are NOT fixed by using larger sample sizes.
- Fomite 10y agoAs a trained epidemiologist, I regret that I have but one upvote to give.
- notahacker 10y agoEven if an abundance of patients with sufficiently similar terminal illnesses at sufficiently similar stages willing to forego their entitlement to other treatment or pain relief in the interests of medical science exists, I can't see "although several patients died during the trial the increase in death rate wasn't statistically significant and whilst possible side effects such as nausea and extreme fatigue were reported, these were also near-universal in the control group" as an advance in testing procedures...