4 ms·

"We believe access to accurate, affordable, real-time diagnostic information is a basic human right." There's a bit of a conflict-of-interest if the company th

by smoyer 13y ago

"We believe access to accurate, affordable, real-time diagnostic information is a basic human right." There's a bit of a conflict-of-interest if the company that makes money providing "X" declares that "X" is a basic human right. Even as a non-profit (most hospitals are non-profit, but that just means the corporation doesn't keep earnings), you can't justify that statement.

carbocation 13y ago
Yes, positive rights that have real cost associated with them–rights which require that someone else do something for you–seem more like "part of the social contract" rather than a fundamental right. Also, this company states it will still require doctors' orders so not sure how that squares with the rights talk.
rfnslyr 13y ago
People who make these statements don't fully understand what they are typing. I feel like in the modern English language, you almost have to over emphasize just to get your basic point across.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  Here's an example of what you are talking about: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392586/Oxford-English-Dictionary-admits-used-wrong-sense-word-literally.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392586/Oxford-Engli...
baddox 13y ago
You just have to ignore the "basic human right" stuff. Generally it just means "something we think a lot of people want," but phrasing it this way can comfort people who think that profit motive is evil (despite the fact that it seems to be the most economically efficient way to distribute resources).
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  It's getting really annoying though, and it demeans actual basic human rights and those that are denied them.
nohuck13 13y ago
Agreed, although I don't mind so much whether they are making money off it- anyone making money off promoting freedom of speech is welcome to promote free speech as a human right. But there's an issue of basic human right inflation thats slightly distasteful. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own property without it being arbitrarily taken away for you by someone stronger. Those are basic human rights, and they don't have to be provided at someone else's cost. I'm a strong supporter of an individual right to healthcare, provided by society/government, but that's a right agreed by social contract... Saying it in stronger terms risks devaluing in a a real way the more basic rights, which billions of people don't have. Maybe I'm being pedantic given that this is PR copy... Edit: carbocation said this 15 minutes ago, oops, upvoted
- fizx 13y ago
  Who grants basic rights? If they're God-given, perhaps they're immutable. Nature grants no rights, and is perfectly willing to stand by idle while we slaughter each other by the millions. The alternative is that basic rights are agreed upon by the society, and as the society matures and evolves, why shouldn't its understanding of what basic rights are change?
  - nohuck13 13y ago
    What rights do you think have changed?
    - fizx 13y ago
      Do rights change, or does the expression of a right change? I believe everyone has a right to an education. Obviously that education will have changed from 4000BCE to 2013. What about the right to create and choose family? How does that intertwine with society's thoughts about homosexuality? I guess a good answer to that question would be a PhD dissertation, not a HN comment. I wish I knew the answer, or that it was easy for me to express.
      - nohuck13 13y ago
1123581321 13y ago
What they mean is that they want to provide testing in such an easy, affordable, useful way that it can become a basic human right/the standard. It is similar to how literacy could become a basic human right once books became cheap, accessibly written and easy to distribute. Should the company that brings about this change be able to expect people to demand its (and its competitors') services? That is what you are asking. I think it depends on if the new standard is actually a positive change. Since the new testing process seems in every way superior to current standard processes, I think that the change in behavior Theranos proposes to bring about is a healthy and beneficial one, and do not mind that they have the means to provide what they want to exist.
- nohuck13 13y ago
  I would argue the right to literacy is already a human right. The price of books is orthogonal.
  - 1123581321 13y ago
    Before books were inexpensive and widely distributed, other means of communication fulfilled many of the functions of books. That is why I chose that example. If you believe that literacy is an eternal human right, substitute one of the other more economically dependent ones such as the right to a lawyer. I don't want my analogy to get in the way of my point for you.
    - nohuck13 13y ago
      That makes sense. I'm not sure positive rights such as the right to a lawyer, or the right to police protection, are fundamental human rights. If you draw a distiction between positive and negative liberty a la Kant [1], you can argue that only negative liberties can be basic human rights. Sure we have a right to legal counsel, but that also implies a duty. What if no one in the city wants to be a lawyer. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
  - crassus 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
gojomo 13y ago
The environment in which Theranos operates is highly regulated, often to the benefit of entrenched/concentrated incumbent providers rather than consumers. So throwing in a little reminder that a cheaper/faster/on-demand offering has a 'right-of-access' dimension may be useful, as a balance against any FUD/appeals-to-traditional-gatekeeper-authority, coming from other slower/higher-cost providers. They do say the right is for "access to...", rather than for "free provision of...".
binarymax 13y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if a real estate agent claimed 'Shelter is a basic human right' in their marketing - would that constitute a conflict of interest? What about Evian adding 'water is a basic human right' to their labels?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by smoyer 13y ago

carbocation 13y ago

Yes, positive rights that have real cost associated with them–rights which require that someone else do something for you–seem more like "part of the social contract" rather than a fundamental right. Also, this company states it will still require doctors' orders so not sure how that squares with the rights talk.

rfnslyr 13y ago

People who make these statements don't fully understand what they are typing. I feel like in the modern English language, you almost have to over emphasize just to get your basic point across.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
Here's an example of what you are talking about: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392586/Oxford-English-Dictionary-admits-used-wrong-sense-word-literally.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392586/Oxford-Engli...

baddox 13y ago

You just have to ignore the "basic human right" stuff. Generally it just means "something we think a lot of people want," but phrasing it this way can comfort people who think that profit motive is evil (despite the fact that it seems to be the most economically efficient way to distribute resources).

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
It's getting really annoying though, and it demeans actual basic human rights and those that are denied them.

nohuck13 13y ago

Agreed, although I don't mind so much whether they are making money off it- anyone making money off promoting freedom of speech is welcome to promote free speech as a human right. But there's an issue of basic human right inflation thats slightly distasteful. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own property without it being arbitrarily taken away for you by someone stronger. Those are basic human rights, and they don't have to be provided at someone else's cost. I'm a strong supporter of an individual right to healthcare, provided by society/government, but that's a right agreed by social contract... Saying it in stronger terms risks devaluing in a a real way the more basic rights, which billions of people don't have. Maybe I'm being pedantic given that this is PR copy... Edit: carbocation said this 15 minutes ago, oops, upvoted

fizx 13y ago
Who grants basic rights? If they're God-given, perhaps they're immutable. Nature grants no rights, and is perfectly willing to stand by idle while we slaughter each other by the millions. The alternative is that basic rights are agreed upon by the society, and as the society matures and evolves, why shouldn't its understanding of what basic rights are change?
- nohuck13 13y ago
  What rights do you think have changed?
  - fizx 13y ago
    Do rights change, or does the expression of a right change? I believe everyone has a right to an education. Obviously that education will have changed from 4000BCE to 2013. What about the right to create and choose family? How does that intertwine with society's thoughts about homosexuality? I guess a good answer to that question would be a PhD dissertation, not a HN comment. I wish I knew the answer, or that it was easy for me to express.
    - nohuck13 13y ago

1123581321 13y ago

What they mean is that they want to provide testing in such an easy, affordable, useful way that it can become a basic human right/the standard. It is similar to how literacy could become a basic human right once books became cheap, accessibly written and easy to distribute. Should the company that brings about this change be able to expect people to demand its (and its competitors') services? That is what you are asking. I think it depends on if the new standard is actually a positive change. Since the new testing process seems in every way superior to current standard processes, I think that the change in behavior Theranos proposes to bring about is a healthy and beneficial one, and do not mind that they have the means to provide what they want to exist.

nohuck13 13y ago
I would argue the right to literacy is already a human right. The price of books is orthogonal.
- 1123581321 13y ago
  Before books were inexpensive and widely distributed, other means of communication fulfilled many of the functions of books. That is why I chose that example. If you believe that literacy is an eternal human right, substitute one of the other more economically dependent ones such as the right to a lawyer. I don't want my analogy to get in the way of my point for you.
  - nohuck13 13y ago
    That makes sense. I'm not sure positive rights such as the right to a lawyer, or the right to police protection, are fundamental human rights. If you draw a distiction between positive and negative liberty a la Kant [1], you can argue that only negative liberties can be basic human rights. Sure we have a right to legal counsel, but that also implies a duty. What if no one in the city wants to be a lawyer. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
- crassus 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

gojomo 13y ago

The environment in which Theranos operates is highly regulated, often to the benefit of entrenched/concentrated incumbent providers rather than consumers. So throwing in a little reminder that a cheaper/faster/on-demand offering has a 'right-of-access' dimension may be useful, as a balance against any FUD/appeals-to-traditional-gatekeeper-authority, coming from other slower/higher-cost providers. They do say the right is for "access to...", rather than for "free provision of...".

binarymax 13y ago

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if a real estate agent claimed 'Shelter is a basic human right' in their marketing - would that constitute a conflict of interest? What about Evian adding 'water is a basic human right' to their labels?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]