4 ms·

there's nothing worse than dying Donald Rumsfeld, the CIA and victims of "extraordinary rendition" would like to disagree. (hint: waterboarding) so at that po

by shiven 12y ago

there's nothing worse than dying Donald Rumsfeld, the CIA and victims of "extraordinary rendition" would like to disagree. (hint: waterboarding) so at that point any experimental drug should be fair game with the patients consent. The ethics of it are way more complicated than that. How would you like to take the risk of not only dying a horrible death, but having the pain magnified 10x due to a drug side effect? Or a drug that causes permanent brain damage to the point of vegetative state but saves your life?

Fuxy 12y ago
Humans will always find inventive ways to torture other humans however if i had a choice between waterboarding and Ebola i will have to go with the one with higher chances of survival. As far as drug side effects are concerned it's up to the patient really. Risk brain damage or amplification of pain for the potential for a higher chance? There's only so far you can go experimenting on animals before you just have to give people a chance to choose for themselves. Once the drug has been proven to give you better odds without known severe side effects or it the likelihood of the side effects is very low then it's up to each individual person to decide even if these test were only done on animals before. What is worse being given a choice or being prevented from choosing by a lot of read tape.