2 ms·
They 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.
by InDubioProRubio 2y ago
They 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.