5 ms·

> That last bit sounds like a powerful and perverse incentive for abuse. Okay, but would you oppose the legality of such an arrangement? In any case, not sure

by pgayed 4y ago

> That last bit sounds like a powerful and perverse incentive for abuse. Okay, but would you oppose the legality of such an arrangement? In any case, not sure why the family, instead of individual directly, is compensated.

logicalmonster 4y ago
Well, the money goes to the individual. But it seems like a fairly safe assumption that a person who is dying and goes through this effort is somewhat motivated to make sure their family is provided for.
bastawhiz 4y ago
> would you oppose such arrangements as legal How can you prevent people from harming themselves to qualify for compensation? It's not about the rights of the individuals, it's about stopping companies from doing things that will kill people. If I said I'll pay $1,000,000 to anyone who drinks a shot of bleach, certainly it's well within anyone's rights to drink bleach. But it's reckless (and arguably should be illegal) for me to encourage folks to do something which is almost certainly going to kill or maim them. If I say that I'll compensate terminally ill people to get an experimental brain implant that has a high likelihood of failure, I'm literally encouraging folks to find a way to qualify as terminally ill.
- pgayed 4y ago
  > almost certainly going to kill or maim them You are strawmanning by providing worst-case scenarios. Is it reckless and arguably illegal to offer jobs on an oil rig? As an x-ray technician? A vascular surgeon? When does risk become so great that consent is unlawful? When is compensation so large it’s compulsion?
  - feoren 4y ago
    > Is it reckless and arguably illegal to offer jobs on an oil rig? As an x-ray technician? A vascular surgeon? The safety of those jobs is regulated and overseen by OSHA, and OSHA can force changes or shut down operations if they are unsafe. Which is exactly what the FDA is doing here, for the same reason. GP's comment was basically "yeah but what if the life-threatening job only used terminally ill people and paid them a whole bunch of money?" It's unconvincing that that should be an exception. > When does risk become so great that consent is unlawful? When a regulatory agency, following due process according to its mandate, says so. Like in this case.
    - pgayed 4y ago
      > When a regulatory agency, following due process according to its mandate, says so. Begging the question.
      - feoren 4y ago
        > Begging the question. No: deferring the question. To a regulatory agency. Staffed with hundreds or thousands of intelligent professionals in the discipline. Mandated by congress to deeply study and understand the issues. Spending decades improving and refining their process. Occasionally getting captured by industry or special interests, which we should fight hard to prevent, but won't always win. Often not quite keeping up with the technological edge, but slowly improving. What's the alternative?
        pgayed 4y ago
        Your argument is still circular. Why is the function you’re describing better served by government? For alternatives, see Underwriters Laboratories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization) Note that it predates OSHA by ~75 years.
        feoren 4y ago
        It's not circular logic to say "this is a hard question whose answer depends on the specifics of each individual situation, so let's get a team of experts together to review every case according to a rubric we improve over time." It's an alternative to both "let people do whatever they want" and "mandate one particular thing that everyone must adhere to regardless of their circumstance". The fact that you (bafflingly) disagree with that solution does not make it "circular logic". Logical fallacies are very specific things, not just a bag of stuff to throw at any statement that makes you uncomfortable. You started this conversation off with a series of seemingly rhetorical questions where you apparently just hoped everyone would shrug along with you and wait for you to bless them with your divine wisdom on what the real answer is (which you never actually said, strangely. Don't leave us hanging.) I'm not sure what conclusion you were hoping we'd all draw from them (some libertarian rich-worshipping Ayn Randian bullshit is my guess), but the wind was rather taken out of your sails when I pointed out that you are not the first the pose these questions and the best answer we have is a regulatory agency. > Why is the function you’re describing better served by government? Because government is the only entity with the power to actually enforce regulatons. Underwriters Laboratories is backed by the power of 300 insurance agencies who banded together for the benefit of all of them, recognizing that many problems are too large for individuals to solve and require collective action. Another word for that is "government". You weirdo Libertarians would be invited to the dinner table more if you were willing to just entertain the idea that "GOVERNMENT" is not one big monolithic shadow cabal that we must resist at all costs, but is simply any case where individual entities have come together in order to enable the possibility of collective action on hard problems. Government happens whether you want it to or not. I don't know why all you Lone Wolf Libertarian house-cats think a government made up of whichever mega-corporations happen to win at capitalism is going to be more benevolent than a government that everyone has a say in creating and improving over time.
  - bastawhiz 4y ago
    > When does risk become so great that consent is unlawful? They have yet to demonstrate, afaik, a better than 90% success rate. And plenty of news reports have been published suggesting they haven't hit a 50% success rate in monkeys. From the outside looking in, this is Russian roulette.
    - pgayed 4y ago
      So it does succeed but just not enough? What if the success rate for currently available devices is 0 percent? Should we not make available something which succeeds in some fraction of cases? What is the magnitude of benefit in cases that do succeed?
      - bastawhiz 4y ago
        > which succeeds "Success" is literally just "doesn't kill and/or horribly maim you". It's not a treatment for a disease. It doesn't give you super powers. It offers no tangible benefit to the patient. There should be an exceptionally high likelihood that the procedure will go well before any human trials are allowed to take place. They can't even demonstrate that they can reliably perform it in animals, so there's really no reason to press ahead in humans except to be able to claim some ridiculous velocity.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > How can you prevent people from harming themselves to qualify for compensation? Is it impossible to imagine that some process could be vetted closely by doctors to only apply this system to people with verified terminal illnesses, not to people that injure themselves intentionally? > If I said I'll pay $1,000,000 to anyone who drinks a shot of bleach, certainly it's well within anyone's rights to drink bleach. 1) I'm not suggesting I'm happy with the idea of anybody being paid to harm themselves, but at the same time, what right does any human have to control anybody else's body? 2) People already pay athletes millions of dollars for a pretty large chance of brain damage and other injuries intentionally, and society cheers that on with roaring approval. People take on very risky jobs for a very slight increase in pay. People are paid to get blown up in literal war zones for pennies. Why is self harm for money ok in some contexts but not others?
  - bastawhiz 4y ago
    > what right does any human have to control anybody else's body? You can do anything you want to your body. Someone shouldn't be able to pay you to do dangerous things to your body. You can consent to whatever you want, you just shouldn't be able to be compensated for it. > Why is self harm for money ok in some contexts but not others? I'd love to hear you name a profession that's so risky that, as the ancestor comment suggests, it should only be available to people with terminal illness.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- JoshuaDavid 4y ago
  > If I said I'll pay $1,000,000 to anyone who drinks a shot of bleach, certainly it's well within anyone's rights to drink bleach. I don't necessarily disagree with your point that it's sometimes necessary to protect people from themselves, and particularly that it's important to consider what incentives you're creating. But it is funny that you should choose "drinking a shot of bleach" as your example of "something which is almost certainly going to kill or maim a person". The LD50 for 5% sodium hypochlorite (i.e. bleach) is 6600 mg / kg in mice and 4090 mg / kg in rats[1]. I don't think anyone has established an exact LD50 value in humans (I sure hope nobody has done that), but per [2] > Accidental human data are reported for ingestion and parenteral route: it can be concluded that the effects of accidental ingestion of domestic sodium hypochlorite bleaches are not expected to lead to severe or permanent damage of the gastrointestinal tract as recovery is rapid and without any permanent health consequences. Guidance from the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center[3] has the following to say: > What is important is to NOT force vomiting to try and rid your body of the chemical. This is definitely more harmful than helpful. Your stomach can handle the small amount of swallowed bleach. We run into problems when people try to force vomiting, because they put themselves at risk for aspiration. Aspiration is the inhalation of either secretions from the back of the throat and nasal cavity or stomach contents into the lower airways of the lungs. This can potentially lead to an acute, chemical lung injury resulting from the inhalation of the contents. > Obviously if someone is trying to intentionally harm themselves, and drinks more than a mouthful, then an immediate evaluation by an ER physician is needed. Large amounts of swallowed bleach can produce more significant, potentially life-threatening problems. So ingesting a large amount of bleach is dangerous, but taking a shot of standard household 5% bleach is actually pretty unlikely to cause permanent damage (though I would still not particularly recommend it in the absence of someone offering you a million bucks). ---------- [1] https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/91020.htm https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/91020.htm [2] https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15516/7/3/1 https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dos... [2] https://azpoison.com/sites/default/files/poisonology_bleach.pdf https://azpoison.com/sites/default/files/poisonology_bleach....
  - bastawhiz 4y ago
    > taking a shot of standard household 5% bleach is actually pretty unlikely to cause permanent damage You willing to take that bet for a million dollars? ;)

by pgayed 4y ago

logicalmonster 4y ago

Well, the money goes to the individual. But it seems like a fairly safe assumption that a person who is dying and goes through this effort is somewhat motivated to make sure their family is provided for.

bastawhiz 4y ago

> would you oppose such arrangements as legal How can you prevent people from harming themselves to qualify for compensation? It's not about the rights of the individuals, it's about stopping companies from doing things that will kill people. If I said I'll pay $1,000,000 to anyone who drinks a shot of bleach, certainly it's well within anyone's rights to drink bleach. But it's reckless (and arguably should be illegal) for me to encourage folks to do something which is almost certainly going to kill or maim them. If I say that I'll compensate terminally ill people to get an experimental brain implant that has a high likelihood of failure, I'm literally encouraging folks to find a way to qualify as terminally ill.

pgayed 4y ago
> almost certainly going to kill or maim them You are strawmanning by providing worst-case scenarios. Is it reckless and arguably illegal to offer jobs on an oil rig? As an x-ray technician? A vascular surgeon? When does risk become so great that consent is unlawful? When is compensation so large it’s compulsion?
- feoren 4y ago
  > Is it reckless and arguably illegal to offer jobs on an oil rig? As an x-ray technician? A vascular surgeon? The safety of those jobs is regulated and overseen by OSHA, and OSHA can force changes or shut down operations if they are unsafe. Which is exactly what the FDA is doing here, for the same reason. GP's comment was basically "yeah but what if the life-threatening job only used terminally ill people and paid them a whole bunch of money?" It's unconvincing that that should be an exception. > When does risk become so great that consent is unlawful? When a regulatory agency, following due process according to its mandate, says so. Like in this case.
  - pgayed 4y ago
    > When a regulatory agency, following due process according to its mandate, says so. Begging the question.
    - feoren 4y ago
      > Begging the question. No: deferring the question. To a regulatory agency. Staffed with hundreds or thousands of intelligent professionals in the discipline. Mandated by congress to deeply study and understand the issues. Spending decades improving and refining their process. Occasionally getting captured by industry or special interests, which we should fight hard to prevent, but won't always win. Often not quite keeping up with the technological edge, but slowly improving. What's the alternative?
      - pgayed 4y ago
        Your argument is still circular. Why is the function you’re describing better served by government? For alternatives, see Underwriters Laboratories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization) Note that it predates OSHA by ~75 years.
        feoren 4y ago
        It's not circular logic to say "this is a hard question whose answer depends on the specifics of each individual situation, so let's get a team of experts together to review every case according to a rubric we improve over time." It's an alternative to both "let people do whatever they want" and "mandate one particular thing that everyone must adhere to regardless of their circumstance". The fact that you (bafflingly) disagree with that solution does not make it "circular logic". Logical fallacies are very specific things, not just a bag of stuff to throw at any statement that makes you uncomfortable. You started this conversation off with a series of seemingly rhetorical questions where you apparently just hoped everyone would shrug along with you and wait for you to bless them with your divine wisdom on what the real answer is (which you never actually said, strangely. Don't leave us hanging.) I'm not sure what conclusion you were hoping we'd all draw from them (some libertarian rich-worshipping Ayn Randian bullshit is my guess), but the wind was rather taken out of your sails when I pointed out that you are not the first the pose these questions and the best answer we have is a regulatory agency. > Why is the function you’re describing better served by government? Because government is the only entity with the power to actually enforce regulatons. Underwriters Laboratories is backed by the power of 300 insurance agencies who banded together for the benefit of all of them, recognizing that many problems are too large for individuals to solve and require collective action. Another word for that is "government". You weirdo Libertarians would be invited to the dinner table more if you were willing to just entertain the idea that "GOVERNMENT" is not one big monolithic shadow cabal that we must resist at all costs, but is simply any case where individual entities have come together in order to enable the possibility of collective action on hard problems. Government happens whether you want it to or not. I don't know why all you Lone Wolf Libertarian house-cats think a government made up of whichever mega-corporations happen to win at capitalism is going to be more benevolent than a government that everyone has a say in creating and improving over time.
- bastawhiz 4y ago
  > When does risk become so great that consent is unlawful? They have yet to demonstrate, afaik, a better than 90% success rate. And plenty of news reports have been published suggesting they haven't hit a 50% success rate in monkeys. From the outside looking in, this is Russian roulette.
  - pgayed 4y ago
    So it does succeed but just not enough? What if the success rate for currently available devices is 0 percent? Should we not make available something which succeeds in some fraction of cases? What is the magnitude of benefit in cases that do succeed?
    - bastawhiz 4y ago
      > which succeeds "Success" is literally just "doesn't kill and/or horribly maim you". It's not a treatment for a disease. It doesn't give you super powers. It offers no tangible benefit to the patient. There should be an exceptionally high likelihood that the procedure will go well before any human trials are allowed to take place. They can't even demonstrate that they can reliably perform it in animals, so there's really no reason to press ahead in humans except to be able to claim some ridiculous velocity.
logicalmonster 4y ago
> How can you prevent people from harming themselves to qualify for compensation? Is it impossible to imagine that some process could be vetted closely by doctors to only apply this system to people with verified terminal illnesses, not to people that injure themselves intentionally? > If I said I'll pay $1,000,000 to anyone who drinks a shot of bleach, certainly it's well within anyone's rights to drink bleach. 1) I'm not suggesting I'm happy with the idea of anybody being paid to harm themselves, but at the same time, what right does any human have to control anybody else's body? 2) People already pay athletes millions of dollars for a pretty large chance of brain damage and other injuries intentionally, and society cheers that on with roaring approval. People take on very risky jobs for a very slight increase in pay. People are paid to get blown up in literal war zones for pennies. Why is self harm for money ok in some contexts but not others?
- bastawhiz 4y ago
  > what right does any human have to control anybody else's body? You can do anything you want to your body. Someone shouldn't be able to pay you to do dangerous things to your body. You can consent to whatever you want, you just shouldn't be able to be compensated for it. > Why is self harm for money ok in some contexts but not others? I'd love to hear you name a profession that's so risky that, as the ancestor comment suggests, it should only be available to people with terminal illness.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JoshuaDavid 4y ago
> If I said I'll pay $1,000,000 to anyone who drinks a shot of bleach, certainly it's well within anyone's rights to drink bleach. I don't necessarily disagree with your point that it's sometimes necessary to protect people from themselves, and particularly that it's important to consider what incentives you're creating. But it is funny that you should choose "drinking a shot of bleach" as your example of "something which is almost certainly going to kill or maim a person". The LD50 for 5% sodium hypochlorite (i.e. bleach) is 6600 mg / kg in mice and 4090 mg / kg in rats[1]. I don't think anyone has established an exact LD50 value in humans (I sure hope nobody has done that), but per [2] > Accidental human data are reported for ingestion and parenteral route: it can be concluded that the effects of accidental ingestion of domestic sodium hypochlorite bleaches are not expected to lead to severe or permanent damage of the gastrointestinal tract as recovery is rapid and without any permanent health consequences. Guidance from the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center[3] has the following to say: > What is important is to NOT force vomiting to try and rid your body of the chemical. This is definitely more harmful than helpful. Your stomach can handle the small amount of swallowed bleach. We run into problems when people try to force vomiting, because they put themselves at risk for aspiration. Aspiration is the inhalation of either secretions from the back of the throat and nasal cavity or stomach contents into the lower airways of the lungs. This can potentially lead to an acute, chemical lung injury resulting from the inhalation of the contents. > Obviously if someone is trying to intentionally harm themselves, and drinks more than a mouthful, then an immediate evaluation by an ER physician is needed. Large amounts of swallowed bleach can produce more significant, potentially life-threatening problems. So ingesting a large amount of bleach is dangerous, but taking a shot of standard household 5% bleach is actually pretty unlikely to cause permanent damage (though I would still not particularly recommend it in the absence of someone offering you a million bucks). ---------- [1] https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/91020.htm https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/91020.htm [2] https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15516/7/3/1 https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dos... [2] https://azpoison.com/sites/default/files/poisonology_bleach.pdf https://azpoison.com/sites/default/files/poisonology_bleach....
- bastawhiz 4y ago
  > taking a shot of standard household 5% bleach is actually pretty unlikely to cause permanent damage You willing to take that bet for a million dollars? ;)