4 ms·
Yeah, not doing human testing on poor folks without a choice is really "angelic" and "perfect". Very high bar to set, how could we possibly achieve such high st
by wesselbindt 2y ago
Yeah, not doing human testing on poor folks without a choice is really "angelic" and "perfect". Very high bar to set, how could we possibly achieve such high standards of morality?
- InDubioProRubio 2y agoThey have a choice. To use the medicine or not. The choice is gone in the other case- where you can die of cancer for "ethical" comission reasons.
- jodleif 2y agoThat’s essentially a non-choice. Also data of self-administration is probably worthless.
- nkrisc 2y agoStep 1: Create economic conditions in which vast numbers of people can’t afford medical care Step 2: Offer them the “choice” of possibly receiving care by being medical guinea pigs for those who created the situation that deprived them of medical care in the first place. A coerced choice is a not a free choice.
- InDubioProRubio 2y agoA non-help, because waiting for the idealized version of help - is still less worth than a "could-help" but under coercing economic conditions. A feel-good ideological purity is less preferable outcome then a tainted Samaritan.
- nkrisc 2y agoIf it wasn't clear, my belief is that it would end up doing more harm than good, and that the status quo is the least-harm scenario between the two.