6 ms·

I think it's safe to remove probably. This went down a chain of people. CEO. VP. PM. Tech Lead. Developer. All of them made a choice to kill people for profit

I think it's safe to remove probably. This went down a chain of people. CEO. VP. PM. Tech Lead. Developer. All of them made a choice to kill people for profit.

ohithereyou 7y ago
I've said this before on HN and I'll say it again. Every C-level exec that was aware this happened and let it happen should be charged with a single count of involuntary manslaughter for every patient who had an opioid overdose that was prescribed pain medication by this system. This is not acceptable, and people's heads should roll.
- sneak 7y ago
  Nobody forced anyone to put those drugs into their body.
  - sonotathrowaway 7y ago
    Nope, they just lied about their addiction potential. Intentionally getting someone addicted to a drug can’t in any way be seen as forcing them to take it.
SkyBelow 7y ago
Would this same logic apply to other jobs? For example, do people who brew beer make the choice to kill others? If the drunk drivers add a level of indirection that prevent blame, then why doesn't the same happen with the doctors in this case? Gun manufacturers? People who build cars that have a known higher fatality rate? People who build swimming pools (look up how many kids die to swimming pools a year)? People who sell unhealthy food? People who make tech/video games that result in less physical activity?
- danharaj 7y ago
  We all choose every day to continue reproducing business as usual.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- asdfgionio1234 7y ago
  If I brew beer, odds are I also drink beer. If I manufacture guns, odds are I also own guns. If I make sports cars, odds are I also like to drive sports cars. People who build swimming pools swim. People who sell junk food buy junk food. People who make video games play video games. The people in your examples are all selling things they probably want to be able to buy. Perhaps you disagree with their decisions, but they are acting out of a good-faith belief that the things they make are good. No one wants to have someone try to get them hooked on opioids. Follow the Golden Rule. (Maybe the junk food and video games examples are different, since some foods and games are deliberately addictive.)
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > (Maybe the junk food and video games examples are different, since some foods and games are deliberately addictive.) Yes and no. I'm not sure who and where sells true junk food; the usual culprit - McD, KFC - sell food that's unhealthy in the long run, but it's also cheap, tasty and quick to get, making it desirable in many different situation. (Also, frankly, I think McDonald's may be better for you than equivalents from a "normal" restaurant. Large fast food chains are ridiculously optimized, but they have standards to meet and an individual location doesn't have the freedom to screw with it. Meanwhile in a random restaurant, I always have to worry how cheap they get with the ingredients and their process, and whether e.g. the meat I'm getting was actually grilled, or was just microwaved and then decorated with grill marks. I don't know anyone currently working on the "back end" of a typical restaurant, but from second-hand reports I keep hearing, I'm not reassured about quality.) And "videogames" as a product category is too broad for this consideration. On one end of the spectrum you have beautiful, engaging videogames designed by passionate creators who absolutely build what they'd like to play. On the other end, you have the bottom-feeding Zynga-like garbage that's essentially gambling in disguise, designed from grounds-up to screw players over.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    And the people making/selling pain killers for those in pain don't think the same? That seems highly unrealistic. Now, the C levels probably aren't the same, but they are the same in that they aren't the same across industries.
sneak 7y ago
I don’t think that’s an accurate statement, and is a misattribution of responsibility. The responsibility ultimately rests with the person who puts the drug in their own body. You can make an argument that their physician is in a position of trust, and that some responsibility lies with their prescribing it. Extending it out to the workers of the vendor is as silly as extending it out to the workers of the keyboard vendor.
- mlazos 7y ago
  It’s definitely not like extending it to the keyboard manufacturer, that’s the reddest of red herrings. They intentionally signed off on a feature that encourages a physician (in a position of trust) to prescribe opioids. The keyboard or tools to build the software had absolutely nothing to do with this unethical decision. It was a ux design decision which they all certainly knew what its intention was (or they were incompetent af).
  - sneak 7y ago
    The software can’t write prescriptions. The software can not force people to ingest pills.
    - mlazos 7y ago
      Your argument rationalizes literally every dark pattern in ux that has ever existed. No of course there isn't a gun to anyone's head here. That's not the point that anyone is arguing. The point is that it encourages someone in a position of trust to act against a patient's interest. They at least share blame with the physician. I'd say most of the blame, because if this feature didn't exist, the physician wouldn't act against the patient's self interest. The world isn't black and white, it's why manslaughter exists as a crime and why we don't just have murder.
      - sneak 7y ago
        Nobody is forced to write such software, either. Assigning responsibility for actions with clear boundaries does not “rationalize” anything. It is important to remember that humans, regardless of their level of ignorance, are responsible for themselves and their own actions. Encouraging people to make bad decisions isn’t the issue at all, even if the final result would not have happened without such encouragement.

I think it's safe to remove probably. This went down a chain of people. CEO. VP. PM. Tech Lead. Developer. All of them made a choice to kill people for profit.

ohithereyou 7y ago

I've said this before on HN and I'll say it again. Every C-level exec that was aware this happened and let it happen should be charged with a single count of involuntary manslaughter for every patient who had an opioid overdose that was prescribed pain medication by this system. This is not acceptable, and people's heads should roll.

sneak 7y ago
Nobody forced anyone to put those drugs into their body.
- sonotathrowaway 7y ago
  Nope, they just lied about their addiction potential. Intentionally getting someone addicted to a drug can’t in any way be seen as forcing them to take it.

SkyBelow 7y ago

Would this same logic apply to other jobs? For example, do people who brew beer make the choice to kill others? If the drunk drivers add a level of indirection that prevent blame, then why doesn't the same happen with the doctors in this case? Gun manufacturers? People who build cars that have a known higher fatality rate? People who build swimming pools (look up how many kids die to swimming pools a year)? People who sell unhealthy food? People who make tech/video games that result in less physical activity?

danharaj 7y ago
We all choose every day to continue reproducing business as usual.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
asdfgionio1234 7y ago
If I brew beer, odds are I also drink beer. If I manufacture guns, odds are I also own guns. If I make sports cars, odds are I also like to drive sports cars. People who build swimming pools swim. People who sell junk food buy junk food. People who make video games play video games. The people in your examples are all selling things they probably want to be able to buy. Perhaps you disagree with their decisions, but they are acting out of a good-faith belief that the things they make are good. No one wants to have someone try to get them hooked on opioids. Follow the Golden Rule. (Maybe the junk food and video games examples are different, since some foods and games are deliberately addictive.)
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > (Maybe the junk food and video games examples are different, since some foods and games are deliberately addictive.) Yes and no. I'm not sure who and where sells true junk food; the usual culprit - McD, KFC - sell food that's unhealthy in the long run, but it's also cheap, tasty and quick to get, making it desirable in many different situation. (Also, frankly, I think McDonald's may be better for you than equivalents from a "normal" restaurant. Large fast food chains are ridiculously optimized, but they have standards to meet and an individual location doesn't have the freedom to screw with it. Meanwhile in a random restaurant, I always have to worry how cheap they get with the ingredients and their process, and whether e.g. the meat I'm getting was actually grilled, or was just microwaved and then decorated with grill marks. I don't know anyone currently working on the "back end" of a typical restaurant, but from second-hand reports I keep hearing, I'm not reassured about quality.) And "videogames" as a product category is too broad for this consideration. On one end of the spectrum you have beautiful, engaging videogames designed by passionate creators who absolutely build what they'd like to play. On the other end, you have the bottom-feeding Zynga-like garbage that's essentially gambling in disguise, designed from grounds-up to screw players over.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  And the people making/selling pain killers for those in pain don't think the same? That seems highly unrealistic. Now, the C levels probably aren't the same, but they are the same in that they aren't the same across industries.

sneak 7y ago

I don’t think that’s an accurate statement, and is a misattribution of responsibility. The responsibility ultimately rests with the person who puts the drug in their own body. You can make an argument that their physician is in a position of trust, and that some responsibility lies with their prescribing it. Extending it out to the workers of the vendor is as silly as extending it out to the workers of the keyboard vendor.

mlazos 7y ago
It’s definitely not like extending it to the keyboard manufacturer, that’s the reddest of red herrings. They intentionally signed off on a feature that encourages a physician (in a position of trust) to prescribe opioids. The keyboard or tools to build the software had absolutely nothing to do with this unethical decision. It was a ux design decision which they all certainly knew what its intention was (or they were incompetent af).
- sneak 7y ago
  The software can’t write prescriptions. The software can not force people to ingest pills.
  - mlazos 7y ago
    Your argument rationalizes literally every dark pattern in ux that has ever existed. No of course there isn't a gun to anyone's head here. That's not the point that anyone is arguing. The point is that it encourages someone in a position of trust to act against a patient's interest. They at least share blame with the physician. I'd say most of the blame, because if this feature didn't exist, the physician wouldn't act against the patient's self interest. The world isn't black and white, it's why manslaughter exists as a crime and why we don't just have murder.
    - sneak 7y ago
      Nobody is forced to write such software, either. Assigning responsibility for actions with clear boundaries does not “rationalize” anything. It is important to remember that humans, regardless of their level of ignorance, are responsible for themselves and their own actions. Encouraging people to make bad decisions isn’t the issue at all, even if the final result would not have happened without such encouragement.