4 ms·

> You can't claim that anything that differs from current law makes it inherently unethical The person you're responding to didn't claim this, and explained in

by foldr 4y ago

> You can't claim that anything that differs from current law makes it inherently unethical The person you're responding to didn't claim this, and explained in detail why early-stage testing on humans is unethical without reference to current law.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical, not any attribute or characteristic of the act itself. This is circular. It does nothing to explain what is ethical or not. Have someone who's worked in preclinical testing and clinical trials, my impression is also that they don't have firm understanding of what the current status even is. It isn't a hard line, but negotiated with the FDA on a Case by case basis.
- foldr 4y ago
  >They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical No, they're not. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 >It isn't a hard line, but negotiated with the FDA on a Case by case basis. Of course it's not a hard line, but this particular case falls way over on the 'not allowed' side. It's not any kind of borderline case.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    >>They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical >No, they're not. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 They are making arbitrary assumptions for what is a procedure is, when it is in fact open ended, calling it "dangerous, highly experimental, early stage medical procedure" They are assuming that the same procedure done in monkeys would be done in humans, which is not supported by the quote, or how the real world works. You can different experiments in humans than monkeys to achieve the same goal, they need not be identical, or even similar.
Dylan16807 4y ago
They didn't give an argument for the status quo, they gave an open-ended argument based on danger being bad. But the correct tolerance for danger is not zero, so proving something is dangerous is not enough. For a car comparison, it's easy to argue that going faster is less safe, but that's not enough to explain why a speed limit for a road is specifically 35mph, and doesn't tell you if 35mph is correct for that road. Maybe it should be 25mph or 45mph. The rest of their argument is making a bunch of assumptions with no evidence shown. They're assuming that the current line is exactly enough to determine the level of danger to the point that you can get informed consent. They're assuming that the current line is an exact match to what's ethical. But maybe that's not true. Maybe the FDA is 50% too lenient. Or maybe they're 50% not lenient enough. This commenter is failing to make a case for the current regulations being just right. They're making a strawman about changing the regulations a huge amount, jumping all the way to nearly unchecked experimentation. Of course that's bad, but that's not what the neurosurgeon actually said.
- foldr 4y ago
  >This commenter is failing to make a case for the current regulations being just right. I don't think they're trying to make a case for the current regulations being just right. The point here is very simple: 1) X is unethical. 2) This guy said they'd do X if it wasn't against FDA regulations. The key point about X is that it's unethical. Whether or not FDA regulations are perfectly calibrated is beside the point.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    The problem is that they're making the claim that X is unethical with zero information on what X is. In this case X is undefined and could be anything that is not currently permitted. If you claim that X is always unethical, and the only fixed characteristic of x is that it's not currently permitted, then there are only two solutions: (1) You think that the current rules are a perfect match for ethics OR (2) anything that violates a rule is unethical.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > I don't think they're trying to make a case for the current regulations being just right. That's sure what it looks like to me when they say "Wanting to do early experimentation, that is currently only allowed to occur on animals due to safety concerns, on humans is definitionally unethical and especially dangerous. We banned it because it is unethical and especially dangerous in basically every case." "definitionally unethical" based on what is currently allowed. So FDA regulations are a cornerstone of that particular argument. And as I elaborated upon in my previous comment, their only other argument is a one-sided "that increases danger" argument that isn't enough because it also applies to things that are ethical.

by foldr 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical, not any attribute or characteristic of the act itself. This is circular. It does nothing to explain what is ethical or not. Have someone who's worked in preclinical testing and clinical trials, my impression is also that they don't have firm understanding of what the current status even is. It isn't a hard line, but negotiated with the FDA on a Case by case basis.

foldr 4y ago
>They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical No, they're not. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 >It isn't a hard line, but negotiated with the FDA on a Case by case basis. Of course it's not a hard line, but this particular case falls way over on the 'not allowed' side. It's not any kind of borderline case.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >>They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical >No, they're not. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 They are making arbitrary assumptions for what is a procedure is, when it is in fact open ended, calling it "dangerous, highly experimental, early stage medical procedure" They are assuming that the same procedure done in monkeys would be done in humans, which is not supported by the quote, or how the real world works. You can different experiments in humans than monkeys to achieve the same goal, they need not be identical, or even similar.

Dylan16807 4y ago

They didn't give an argument for the status quo, they gave an open-ended argument based on danger being bad. But the correct tolerance for danger is not zero, so proving something is dangerous is not enough. For a car comparison, it's easy to argue that going faster is less safe, but that's not enough to explain why a speed limit for a road is specifically 35mph, and doesn't tell you if 35mph is correct for that road. Maybe it should be 25mph or 45mph. The rest of their argument is making a bunch of assumptions with no evidence shown. They're assuming that the current line is exactly enough to determine the level of danger to the point that you can get informed consent. They're assuming that the current line is an exact match to what's ethical. But maybe that's not true. Maybe the FDA is 50% too lenient. Or maybe they're 50% not lenient enough. This commenter is failing to make a case for the current regulations being just right. They're making a strawman about changing the regulations a huge amount, jumping all the way to nearly unchecked experimentation. Of course that's bad, but that's not what the neurosurgeon actually said.

foldr 4y ago
>This commenter is failing to make a case for the current regulations being just right. I don't think they're trying to make a case for the current regulations being just right. The point here is very simple: 1) X is unethical. 2) This guy said they'd do X if it wasn't against FDA regulations. The key point about X is that it's unethical. Whether or not FDA regulations are perfectly calibrated is beside the point.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  The problem is that they're making the claim that X is unethical with zero information on what X is. In this case X is undefined and could be anything that is not currently permitted. If you claim that X is always unethical, and the only fixed characteristic of x is that it's not currently permitted, then there are only two solutions: (1) You think that the current rules are a perfect match for ethics OR (2) anything that violates a rule is unethical.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > I don't think they're trying to make a case for the current regulations being just right. That's sure what it looks like to me when they say "Wanting to do early experimentation, that is currently only allowed to occur on animals due to safety concerns, on humans is definitionally unethical and especially dangerous. We banned it because it is unethical and especially dangerous in basically every case." "definitionally unethical" based on what is currently allowed. So FDA regulations are a cornerstone of that particular argument. And as I elaborated upon in my previous comment, their only other argument is a one-sided "that increases danger" argument that isn't enough because it also applies to things that are ethical.