6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - foldr 4y ago
      The point of the hypothetical example was just to illustrate that whether or not something is ethical is a separate question from whether or not something is in line with the regulations (or the law, in the analogy). This is why it’s so odd that you seem to think the OP was saying that the current regulations define what’s ethical. > All they've said is that a super extreme early experiment is bad Correct. Or any early experiment on humans (‘extreme’ or not), as the potential benefits don’t justify the risks. > and then acted like the neurosurgeon said they wanted to do that. Yes - that’s the impression I get from what the neurosurgeon said. I don’t understand why you are asking me or OP where to draw the line. You don’t have to know exactly where to draw the line in order to know that certain things are on one or other side of it.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > Or any early experiment on humans (‘extreme’ or not), as the potential benefits don’t justify the risks. Well that's just it. If 'early' is automatically bad, and 'early' just means anything not currently allowed, then you're using the FDA's definition. Or when you use the term 'early', are you defining 'early' based on what is ethical? That's definitely not the meaning of 'early' the neurosurgeon was using!! The neurosurgeon wants to do 'early'. But 'early' is a vast swath of scenarios, covering orders of magnitude of safety and preparedness. Which is why I think using very extreme examples does more harm than good to having a conversation about this. I don't think letting people sign up to do a test moderately earlier than they currently can is a huge ethical problem. Even if we assume it's a bad idea, it's not Evil. That's my real objection to the original point. A medium-size change to current regulations is nowhere near "capital E Evil". I don't think we need to have exact discussions about where the line is, my point is that the great-whatever parent was assuming some kind of crazy extreme and acting like that was the only possible meaning for the sentence. And my asking them where the line is was a way of trying to make that clear, that they're neglecting more mundane scenarios.
        foldr 4y ago
        >and 'early' just means anything not currently allowed, Well no, it doesn't mean this. It means testing a treatment that's still highly experimental and a long way from being approved. In other words, a treatment that is in the EARLY stages of its development (in the normal English sense of the term). Listening again to the relevant portion of the interview, I think the claim that the interviewee was using 'early' to mean 'whatever the FDA regards as early' is pretty clearly false. They say 'we can't do early stage testing on humans because the FDA bans it', but that obviously doesn't mean that they define the meaning of 'early' by FDA regulations. That would be as erroneous as saying "the law bans murder, therefore the meaning of 'murder' is defined by the law". >Or when you use the term 'early', are you defining 'early' based on what is ethical? No - of course I'm not. How do you come up with these bizarre misreadings?

by 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.
  - foldr 4y ago
    The point of the hypothetical example was just to illustrate that whether or not something is ethical is a separate question from whether or not something is in line with the regulations (or the law, in the analogy). This is why it’s so odd that you seem to think the OP was saying that the current regulations define what’s ethical. > All they've said is that a super extreme early experiment is bad Correct. Or any early experiment on humans (‘extreme’ or not), as the potential benefits don’t justify the risks. > and then acted like the neurosurgeon said they wanted to do that. Yes - that’s the impression I get from what the neurosurgeon said. I don’t understand why you are asking me or OP where to draw the line. You don’t have to know exactly where to draw the line in order to know that certain things are on one or other side of it.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > Or any early experiment on humans (‘extreme’ or not), as the potential benefits don’t justify the risks. Well that's just it. If 'early' is automatically bad, and 'early' just means anything not currently allowed, then you're using the FDA's definition. Or when you use the term 'early', are you defining 'early' based on what is ethical? That's definitely not the meaning of 'early' the neurosurgeon was using!! The neurosurgeon wants to do 'early'. But 'early' is a vast swath of scenarios, covering orders of magnitude of safety and preparedness. Which is why I think using very extreme examples does more harm than good to having a conversation about this. I don't think letting people sign up to do a test moderately earlier than they currently can is a huge ethical problem. Even if we assume it's a bad idea, it's not Evil. That's my real objection to the original point. A medium-size change to current regulations is nowhere near "capital E Evil". I don't think we need to have exact discussions about where the line is, my point is that the great-whatever parent was assuming some kind of crazy extreme and acting like that was the only possible meaning for the sentence. And my asking them where the line is was a way of trying to make that clear, that they're neglecting more mundane scenarios.
      - foldr 4y ago
        >and 'early' just means anything not currently allowed, Well no, it doesn't mean this. It means testing a treatment that's still highly experimental and a long way from being approved. In other words, a treatment that is in the EARLY stages of its development (in the normal English sense of the term). Listening again to the relevant portion of the interview, I think the claim that the interviewee was using 'early' to mean 'whatever the FDA regards as early' is pretty clearly false. They say 'we can't do early stage testing on humans because the FDA bans it', but that obviously doesn't mean that they define the meaning of 'early' by FDA regulations. That would be as erroneous as saying "the law bans murder, therefore the meaning of 'murder' is defined by the law". >Or when you use the term 'early', are you defining 'early' based on what is ethical? No - of course I'm not. How do you come up with these bizarre misreadings?