4 ms·

I'm not filling in anything with assumption. The data we have is just rather minimal and incomplete. The 10% "assumption" was made for the sake of the example.

by noxer 5y ago

I'm not filling in anything with assumption. The data we have is just rather minimal and incomplete. The 10% "assumption" was made for the sake of the example. Since we dont know the real percentage but we know its statistically there and its positive. Could it be just 5%? Maybe, but 5% is still more than 0%. The numbers don't change the overall moral/ethical problem of creating more harm by tying to help people. Does it really matter how much more harm it causes? >The right approach would be to talk to real life young people and young adults in this position and come to an understanding based on their experiences. Why would you assume I have not? And understanding their experience is fine but their experiences don't change numbers, studies, statistics etc. You can argue the numbers are weak and that is true (we need better data to make informed decisions) but that still does not give "their experience" any kind of value as a counterargument. If there is evidence that shows that lives can be saved by not doing certain medical treatments, especially early treatments and instead postponing them with minimal negative side effects, how would the "understanding the experience" of individuals affect this? They might disagree but that doesn't make it not true and in their best interest. We generally dont ask people with comparable problems what they think is best for them and then just do that. We may ask them to study the problem and even as part of the decision making process how to treat them. All of this is fine if done on an individual level. But if we make an overall statement it certainly should not be to "understanding their experience" by listening to the affected people and then do as they wish. There is literally no medical condition out there that is treated this way. >Middle ground positions sound ok, but this this a squishy topic with infinite dimensions and designing systems that try to take a balanced approach do harm in unobvious and subtle ways. Well we are expressing opinions here and sometimes you cant get them across in a "middle ground" way. But looking at each case individually seems kinda middle ground to me.

kelseyfrog 5y ago
> Does it really matter how much more harm it causes? Yes, the quantity and quality are the most important part of this whole discussion. Anyone should have a handle on these before drawing conclusions that intend to reduce harm. I'll make an analogy. How many times have you had to remind someone to profile before making optimizations? Studying harm is the profiling and making changes to reduce it is optimizing. > Why would you assume I have not? That's fantastic! What did they say about this? > There is literally no medical condition out there that is treated this way. There's literally no medical condition that intersects society this way. Why apply a blanket approach to all medical conditions? > looking at each case individually seems kinda middle ground to me. It sounds nice, but the outcome is that individual practitioners will exert their individual biases[1]. This is why we have things like DSM[2] in psychology, and in this specific case WPATH[3]. 1. Don't mistake this that my goal is zero biases. We're talking about reducing harm, not eliminating it. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. 2. An example of standards 3. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc
- noxer 5y ago
  I said "Does it really matter how much MORE harm it causes?" Context matters. The question was "does it matter if its 5% more or 10% more? (or any other number more)" The answer is: No, it does not matter, because its more and we want less. You dont do something because it "only" 5% worse and stop if its 10% worse. You dont need to know how much worse it is. If its worse its worse. If it cause preventable collateral damage then its not okay to do it anyway.
DanBC 5y ago
> There is literally no medical condition out there that is treated this way. Literally every medical condition will take into account quality of life before, during, and after treatment.
- noxer 5y ago
  Maybe read the Context? "take into account" doesn't mean we medicate people as they wish, with what they wish to be medicate with. Else you would need to give a dug addict more drugs. And you cant improve quality of life of a few by causing overall more harm to others, that would be unethical.

by noxer 5y ago

kelseyfrog 5y ago

> Does it really matter how much more harm it causes? Yes, the quantity and quality are the most important part of this whole discussion. Anyone should have a handle on these before drawing conclusions that intend to reduce harm. I'll make an analogy. How many times have you had to remind someone to profile before making optimizations? Studying harm is the profiling and making changes to reduce it is optimizing. > Why would you assume I have not? That's fantastic! What did they say about this? > There is literally no medical condition out there that is treated this way. There's literally no medical condition that intersects society this way. Why apply a blanket approach to all medical conditions? > looking at each case individually seems kinda middle ground to me. It sounds nice, but the outcome is that individual practitioners will exert their individual biases[1]. This is why we have things like DSM[2] in psychology, and in this specific case WPATH[3]. 1. Don't mistake this that my goal is zero biases. We're talking about reducing harm, not eliminating it. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. 2. An example of standards 3. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc

noxer 5y ago
I said "Does it really matter how much MORE harm it causes?" Context matters. The question was "does it matter if its 5% more or 10% more? (or any other number more)" The answer is: No, it does not matter, because its more and we want less. You dont do something because it "only" 5% worse and stop if its 10% worse. You dont need to know how much worse it is. If its worse its worse. If it cause preventable collateral damage then its not okay to do it anyway.

DanBC 5y ago

> There is literally no medical condition out there that is treated this way. Literally every medical condition will take into account quality of life before, during, and after treatment.

noxer 5y ago
Maybe read the Context? "take into account" doesn't mean we medicate people as they wish, with what they wish to be medicate with. Else you would need to give a dug addict more drugs. And you cant improve quality of life of a few by causing overall more harm to others, that would be unethical.