2 ms·

Again, you are effectively arguing that it would be ethical for a doctor to try to experimentally create a glow-in-the-dark baby if asked to by the mother. Goo

Again, you are effectively arguing that it would be ethical for a doctor to try to experimentally create a glow-in-the-dark baby if asked to by the mother. Good or bad science has nothing to do with the outcomes--that's good or bad medicine. There's plenty of 'good science' practiced on lab rats that would immediately become horrifyingly unethical if practiced on humans, but that has nothing to do with how well the scientific method is being applied and what can be learned. Anyway, this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive, so I will bid you good day.

zeroname 8y ago
> Again, you are effectively arguing that it would be ethical for a doctor to try to experimentally create a glow-in-the-dark baby if asked to by the mother. No, I am not arguing that. That's an embarrassingly absurd conclusion to draw. These babies have a risk of life-long HIV impairment. This intervention may prevent this. With any medical intervention, you need to trade off risk and reward. Obviously, for an unborn child, there can not be any consent here. It would be unethical to not give the babies the treatment if there wasn't any risk associated. What makes it unethical is that the risk profile isn't even known. The scientific foundation is poor. > Anyway, this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive, so I will bid you good day. I agree and let me say this: You're by far the worst discussion partner I have ever had on HN.
- danenania 8y ago
  "You're by far the worst discussion partner I have ever had on HN." Woe is me! I somehow doubt you're very high on anyone's list yourself :-/