4 ms·

Any real science is probably out of the question, but is that really that unusual? Plenty of subjects are impossible to research for ethical reasons. I think s

Any real science is probably out of the question, but is that really that unusual? Plenty of subjects are impossible to research for ethical reasons. I think some data on hypothermia is still only known because of some of the terrible things nazis did.

benterix 2y ago
Why in this case though? I imagine someone who is gay may at some point feel they are unhappy with that and see if there are any options for them. If, for political reasons, we treat the whole subject as taboo, it's basically failing vulnerable people who might need help.
- contravariant 2y ago
  That's a lot of hypotheticals, and frankly that situation is not too unusual in medicine. They take first do no harm quite seriously. Heck we could have gathered quite a lot of very important and useful data by deliberately infecting a few thousand people with Covid, or even just placing them at risk. To my knowledge none of the obvious experiments on the infectiousness of Covid or the effect of countermeasures happened.
  - benterix 2y ago
    I see your point. But I sometimes wonder how much harm we actually do by being afraid to confront the current political opinions. I believe at least in the UK, after the Tavistock scandal, people started asking questions. I mean, you mention taking do no harm seriously, and at the same time doctors give children puberty blockers sometimes after just two visits, knowing it will negatively impact their physical health (bone density, growth, and many others), to move almost all kids on to hormones - in spite of the fact that the study they themselves published shows there are no improvements in their mental health. And people who decided to start asking questions faced a lot of negativity, just for trying to understand how things really are.
    - tivert 2y ago
      > I believe at least in the UK, after the Tavistock scandal, people started asking questions. I mean, you mention taking do no harm seriously... I think that's a good reminder/example that you you can't really reason from high-flying principles like "first do no harm" to actual behavior and effect, especially when politics and/or ideology are involved. If my ideology says X is harmful, and yours says X is needed to avoid harm, is harm being done or avoided? That's an political question, not a scientific one, and will ultimately come down to who has the power to impose their view.

benterix 2y ago

Why in this case though? I imagine someone who is gay may at some point feel they are unhappy with that and see if there are any options for them. If, for political reasons, we treat the whole subject as taboo, it's basically failing vulnerable people who might need help.

contravariant 2y ago
That's a lot of hypotheticals, and frankly that situation is not too unusual in medicine. They take first do no harm quite seriously. Heck we could have gathered quite a lot of very important and useful data by deliberately infecting a few thousand people with Covid, or even just placing them at risk. To my knowledge none of the obvious experiments on the infectiousness of Covid or the effect of countermeasures happened.
- benterix 2y ago
  I see your point. But I sometimes wonder how much harm we actually do by being afraid to confront the current political opinions. I believe at least in the UK, after the Tavistock scandal, people started asking questions. I mean, you mention taking do no harm seriously, and at the same time doctors give children puberty blockers sometimes after just two visits, knowing it will negatively impact their physical health (bone density, growth, and many others), to move almost all kids on to hormones - in spite of the fact that the study they themselves published shows there are no improvements in their mental health. And people who decided to start asking questions faced a lot of negativity, just for trying to understand how things really are.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > I believe at least in the UK, after the Tavistock scandal, people started asking questions. I mean, you mention taking do no harm seriously... I think that's a good reminder/example that you you can't really reason from high-flying principles like "first do no harm" to actual behavior and effect, especially when politics and/or ideology are involved. If my ideology says X is harmful, and yours says X is needed to avoid harm, is harm being done or avoided? That's an political question, not a scientific one, and will ultimately come down to who has the power to impose their view.