4 ms·

>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

by 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.
- foldr 4y ago
  I’m confused. The part of their comment you quote isn’t making a case for the current regulations being just right. It’s not even saying that, let alone trying to make a case for it.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    If wanting to do something the regulations disallow is definitionally unethical, banned because it was unethical, then either the regulations are exactly correct wrt ethics or they are actually too permissive. Right? How else can I interpret that? And can you quote any argument they've made for the experiments being unethical that doesn't either: A) base the argument on current FDA rules B) assume some kind of extreme example like "so experimental we can't even explain the danger well enough for informed consent to be possible" I would be interested in a discussion of specific issues with specific possible experiments but I don't see that happening anywhere. Just someone taking the neurosurgeon's words and interpreting them in the most extreme way possible.
    - foldr 4y ago
      >If wanting to do something the regulations disallow is definitionally unethical... Here's what they actually said: "Wanting to do early experimentation, that is currently only allowed to occur on animals due to safety concerns, on humans is definitionally unethical..." I don't know why, but you are just persistently misreading or misinterpreting the OP's comments. If you actually read the rest of the OP's comments, it's completely obvious that they don't think that the current regulations define what's ethical. They very explicitly say that what's ethical and what's in accord with the regulations are two separate things, and even give a hypothetical example to illustrate this.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        The only definition for "early" they're giving is the line that is currently set by FDA regulation! They're treating it all exactly the same, as long as it's currently not allowed. They have not given any other information on where to draw the line. > even give a hypothetical example to illustrate this No they didn't. They gave an analogy about how murder is bad. Which is no more helpful than "the most extreme possible interpretation of what the neurosurgeon said would be bad". They haven't given any examples of experiments that are okay or not okay. All they've said is that a super extreme early experiment is bad, and then acted like the neurosurgeon said they wanted to do that. They are either ignoring the possibility of less extreme examples, or acting like everything the FDA doesn't allow is exactly the same. I can't tell you which it is, so if you insist it's not the latter then it must be the former. That's just as bad. It's a strawman. If they gave a non-strawman non-FDA explanation of where to draw the line, then I must be blind, so please quote it.

by foldr 4y ago

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.

foldr 4y ago
I’m confused. The part of their comment you quote isn’t making a case for the current regulations being just right. It’s not even saying that, let alone trying to make a case for it.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  If wanting to do something the regulations disallow is definitionally unethical, banned because it was unethical, then either the regulations are exactly correct wrt ethics or they are actually too permissive. Right? How else can I interpret that? And can you quote any argument they've made for the experiments being unethical that doesn't either: A) base the argument on current FDA rules B) assume some kind of extreme example like "so experimental we can't even explain the danger well enough for informed consent to be possible" I would be interested in a discussion of specific issues with specific possible experiments but I don't see that happening anywhere. Just someone taking the neurosurgeon's words and interpreting them in the most extreme way possible.
  - foldr 4y ago
    >If wanting to do something the regulations disallow is definitionally unethical... Here's what they actually said: "Wanting to do early experimentation, that is currently only allowed to occur on animals due to safety concerns, on humans is definitionally unethical..." I don't know why, but you are just persistently misreading or misinterpreting the OP's comments. If you actually read the rest of the OP's comments, it's completely obvious that they don't think that the current regulations define what's ethical. They very explicitly say that what's ethical and what's in accord with the regulations are two separate things, and even give a hypothetical example to illustrate this.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      The only definition for "early" they're giving is the line that is currently set by FDA regulation! They're treating it all exactly the same, as long as it's currently not allowed. They have not given any other information on where to draw the line. > even give a hypothetical example to illustrate this No they didn't. They gave an analogy about how murder is bad. Which is no more helpful than "the most extreme possible interpretation of what the neurosurgeon said would be bad". They haven't given any examples of experiments that are okay or not okay. All they've said is that a super extreme early experiment is bad, and then acted like the neurosurgeon said they wanted to do that. They are either ignoring the possibility of less extreme examples, or acting like everything the FDA doesn't allow is exactly the same. I can't tell you which it is, so if you insist it's not the latter then it must be the former. That's just as bad. It's a strawman. If they gave a non-strawman non-FDA explanation of where to draw the line, then I must be blind, so please quote it.