3 ms·

> First, human beings aren't Guinea pigs. Yes, the FDA is slow - for damn good reasons. We didn't use to do things this way and then we changed it to fix proble

> First, human beings aren't Guinea pigs. Yes, the FDA is slow - for damn good reasons. We didn't use to do things this way and then we changed it to fix problems. There are reasons things are the way they are and it's very well-understood in the medical field. Medicine is not a move fast and cause pain and suffering kind of field or move fast and kill people kind of field. They're very conservative. The problem with this is that they don't appear to be optimizing for the minimization of harm, which seems very obviously to be what they should be optimizing for. Instead, they're optimizing for the minimization of harm caused by new drugs/treatments/etc., while ignoring the harm caused by disease. It's all well and good to not cause suffering through your actions, but suffering caused by inaction (or slow action) is still very much suffering that's caused by your decisions.

taylodl 3y ago
> Instead, they're optimizing for the minimization of harm caused by new drugs/treatments/etc. Of course they are. From an ethics standpoint they're responsible for the harm caused to you by new drugs/treatments/etc. They're not ethically (or legally - but that's another matter) for nature harming you via the ravages of disease. If you're familiar with the education of anyone in a medical or medical-related environment then you know it's pounded in their heads to do no harm. Medical intervention is to ameliorate, not deteriorate. Medical intervention is not prescribed if it's not known to heal. That's when palliative care is called for. I will say it again - human beings are not Guinea pigs, especially when they're dying.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  > From an ethics standpoint they're responsible for the harm caused to you by new drugs/treatments/etc. I would argue that from an ethics standpoint they're responsible for the results of their decisions. If they hold a treatment up for an extended period of time because it might have some complications, but with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that it would have saved lots of people who instead died, they bear some responsibility for those deaths. > If you're familiar with the education of anyone in a medical or medical-related environment then you know it's pounded in their heads to do no harm. As it should be, but the point is that harm can be done by inaction, not just by action.

taylodl 3y ago

> Instead, they're optimizing for the minimization of harm caused by new drugs/treatments/etc. Of course they are. From an ethics standpoint they're responsible for the harm caused to you by new drugs/treatments/etc. They're not ethically (or legally - but that's another matter) for nature harming you via the ravages of disease. If you're familiar with the education of anyone in a medical or medical-related environment then you know it's pounded in their heads to do no harm. Medical intervention is to ameliorate, not deteriorate. Medical intervention is not prescribed if it's not known to heal. That's when palliative care is called for. I will say it again - human beings are not Guinea pigs, especially when they're dying.

idopmstuff 3y ago
> From an ethics standpoint they're responsible for the harm caused to you by new drugs/treatments/etc. I would argue that from an ethics standpoint they're responsible for the results of their decisions. If they hold a treatment up for an extended period of time because it might have some complications, but with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that it would have saved lots of people who instead died, they bear some responsibility for those deaths. > If you're familiar with the education of anyone in a medical or medical-related environment then you know it's pounded in their heads to do no harm. As it should be, but the point is that harm can be done by inaction, not just by action.