3 ms·
On an individual level that's rational, but on an institutional level the safeguards and caution are also rational. If you are able to make the drugs/experiment
by jobs_throwaway 3y ago
On an individual level that's rational, but on an institutional level the safeguards and caution are also rational. If you are able to make the drugs/experiments yourself, knock yourself out. But don't expect huge corporations/governments to do it for you
- tiahura 3y agoShouldn't the safeguards be inversely proportional to the level of untreatable misery?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Shouldn't the safeguards be inversely proportional to the level of untreatable misery? This is tautology’s Treatment is the variable. What constitutes the untreatable is the point of the question.
- aeternum 3y agoThe safeguards and caution are even more immoral from a rationalist point of view. By delaying potential medical breakthroughs you cause many future humans some amount of additional suffering because medical breakthroughs build on one another. If you delay an ALS cure by one year, you are not only harming all those who have ALS for that year but all those present and future humans that have other diseases that could benefit from the future research tree branching out from that ALS cure. Suppose for example that our ancestors were more risk-averse, more focused on the moral "do no harm" and thereby agreed upon 20 year trials for all new surgical procedures. What would 'modern' surgery look like? We should be celebrating the risk-takers as willingness to take an experimental drug or an experimental treatment as it is often a greater gift to humanity than an organ donation.