5 ms·

It’s very hard to structure such a program. Just some concerns: - even if it’s voluntary, how do we ensure that volunteers are not coerced? - how do we validate

It’s very hard to structure such a program. Just some concerns: - even if it’s voluntary, how do we ensure that volunteers are not coerced? - how do we validate that volunteers truly comprehend the risks? - how do we ensure that volunteers are of sound mind and not suicidal? - if someone is gravely injured or disabled in the experiment, is the institution prepared to care for them for the rest of their life? - if we offer compensation, how do we account for the fact that people of lower socio-economic status will be more likely to take that compensation for the same risk? Keep in mind that we are also only 70 years away from some striking cases of the Medical-government complex in multiple countries performing some horrid experiments on human subjects without their consent.

darawk 9y ago
> how do we ensure that volunteers are not coerced? Speak to them privately, away from any outside influences. This seems like a pretty reasonable way to ensure someone isn't coerced. I suppose there are complex situations (e.g. someone is holding your children hostage) where this may not be sufficient, but it's unclear why someone would go to that trouble to coerce someone to lend themselves to such an experiment. This seems like mostly a non-issue. > how do we validate that volunteers truly comprehend the risks? Have a psychiatrist/psychologist interview them. Give them a long cooling off period, so that it's not a spur of the moment decision. Require the sign-off of the psychiatrist/psychologist, or panel thereof before approval. > how do we ensure that volunteers are of sound mind and not suicidal? Why do you need to do that? If someone wants to kill themselves, we might as well let them contribute to humanity in so doing. > if someone is gravely injured or disabled in the experiment, is the institution prepared to care for them for the rest of their life? We could decide that they must be, if we felt that was necessary. > if we offer compensation, how do we account for the fact that people of lower socio-economic status will be more likely to take that compensation for the same risk? Why is that a problem? People often point this out, but I don't really get it. Let's phrase it another way: Why shouldn't we give poor people agency over themselves and their situation? The fact that poorer people are more get the option to do this thing that could improve their situation seems like only a great thing to me. This only gives them a new choice that they didn't previously have - it's hard for me to see how that could be a bad thing.
- andrepd 9y ago
  >> if we offer compensation, how do we account for the fact that people of lower socio-economic status will be more likely to take that compensation for the same risk? >Why is that a problem? You don't understand why this is a problem because, I'd wager, you're not in this situation yourself. It's absolutely perverse that, instead of striving for a more egalitarian society, we would effectively force the most vulnerable among to sell themselves to scientific experiments to survive (incidentally, the premise of "Every sperm is sacred", comedy song from Monty Python).
  - dizzystar 9y ago
    Poor people already give plasma and sign up for medical trials for quick money. While the consequences aren't fatal, this is already happening. Why do people who are not poor always feel like they should be telling the poor how to live their lives? You do realize that many poor people are incredibly intelligent, just that they are missing a network to get to a higher level.
  - darawk 9y ago
    > It's absolutely perverse that, instead of striving for a more egalitarian society, we would effectively force the most vulnerable among to sell themselves to scientific experiments to survive So, you think the situation they're in now, where they don't have this option, is preferable to the one where they do have this option? Nobody said anything about 'instead of', either. The point is: unless you have a perfectly egalitarian society, some people will have more stuff and other people will have less. Jobs offering stuff are, inherently, more attractive to those who currently have less stuff. There is nothing wrong about that, in fact, that's the mechanism by which people with less stuff acquire more stuff. Why, exactly, do you believe they shouldn't be able to make that choice for themselves?
    - simonh 9y ago
      It is unethical to perform such experiments on people regardless of what they say or why. It’s like I tell my children. We strive to be polite to other people because of who we are, not because of who they are. That’s what ethics is about. To approach it another way, as long as one group of people has an economic benefit from abusing another group, there’s a problem. There’s no way you can ever be certain enough that such a system is being administered fairly and competently. The bureaucratic and ethical abuses and mistakes we get already are bad enough. Finally, I f anyone is in such a desperate situation that this looks like a good option, then surely there must be other ethical options available for society to intervene?
onlyrealcuzzo 9y ago
Right. A lot of people would be willing to risk their life for some really dangerous medical experiment in exchange for a couple of hits of Heroin. Very tricky situation.
- thret 9y ago
  Why is this an ethical problem? Why should society place a higher value on someone's life than that someone places on their own?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

darawk 9y ago

> how do we ensure that volunteers are not coerced? Speak to them privately, away from any outside influences. This seems like a pretty reasonable way to ensure someone isn't coerced. I suppose there are complex situations (e.g. someone is holding your children hostage) where this may not be sufficient, but it's unclear why someone would go to that trouble to coerce someone to lend themselves to such an experiment. This seems like mostly a non-issue. > how do we validate that volunteers truly comprehend the risks? Have a psychiatrist/psychologist interview them. Give them a long cooling off period, so that it's not a spur of the moment decision. Require the sign-off of the psychiatrist/psychologist, or panel thereof before approval. > how do we ensure that volunteers are of sound mind and not suicidal? Why do you need to do that? If someone wants to kill themselves, we might as well let them contribute to humanity in so doing. > if someone is gravely injured or disabled in the experiment, is the institution prepared to care for them for the rest of their life? We could decide that they must be, if we felt that was necessary. > if we offer compensation, how do we account for the fact that people of lower socio-economic status will be more likely to take that compensation for the same risk? Why is that a problem? People often point this out, but I don't really get it. Let's phrase it another way: Why shouldn't we give poor people agency over themselves and their situation? The fact that poorer people are more get the option to do this thing that could improve their situation seems like only a great thing to me. This only gives them a new choice that they didn't previously have - it's hard for me to see how that could be a bad thing.

andrepd 9y ago
>> if we offer compensation, how do we account for the fact that people of lower socio-economic status will be more likely to take that compensation for the same risk? >Why is that a problem? You don't understand why this is a problem because, I'd wager, you're not in this situation yourself. It's absolutely perverse that, instead of striving for a more egalitarian society, we would effectively force the most vulnerable among to sell themselves to scientific experiments to survive (incidentally, the premise of "Every sperm is sacred", comedy song from Monty Python).
- dizzystar 9y ago
  Poor people already give plasma and sign up for medical trials for quick money. While the consequences aren't fatal, this is already happening. Why do people who are not poor always feel like they should be telling the poor how to live their lives? You do realize that many poor people are incredibly intelligent, just that they are missing a network to get to a higher level.
- darawk 9y ago
  > It's absolutely perverse that, instead of striving for a more egalitarian society, we would effectively force the most vulnerable among to sell themselves to scientific experiments to survive So, you think the situation they're in now, where they don't have this option, is preferable to the one where they do have this option? Nobody said anything about 'instead of', either. The point is: unless you have a perfectly egalitarian society, some people will have more stuff and other people will have less. Jobs offering stuff are, inherently, more attractive to those who currently have less stuff. There is nothing wrong about that, in fact, that's the mechanism by which people with less stuff acquire more stuff. Why, exactly, do you believe they shouldn't be able to make that choice for themselves?
  - simonh 9y ago
    It is unethical to perform such experiments on people regardless of what they say or why. It’s like I tell my children. We strive to be polite to other people because of who we are, not because of who they are. That’s what ethics is about. To approach it another way, as long as one group of people has an economic benefit from abusing another group, there’s a problem. There’s no way you can ever be certain enough that such a system is being administered fairly and competently. The bureaucratic and ethical abuses and mistakes we get already are bad enough. Finally, I f anyone is in such a desperate situation that this looks like a good option, then surely there must be other ethical options available for society to intervene?

onlyrealcuzzo 9y ago

Right. A lot of people would be willing to risk their life for some really dangerous medical experiment in exchange for a couple of hits of Heroin. Very tricky situation.

thret 9y ago
Why is this an ethical problem? Why should society place a higher value on someone's life than that someone places on their own?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]