So the perfect nothing is allowed to block the imperfect something, because we wait for humans to transcend to angelic beeings?

▲

nkrisc 10 months ago | parent | next [-]

I’m inclined to believe that the status quo is actually better than mass human experimentation on the poor.

▲

wesselbindt 10 months ago | parent | prev [-]

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 10 months ago | parent [-]

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 10 months ago | parent | next [-]

That’s essentially a non-choice. Also data of self-administration is probably worthless.

▲

nkrisc 10 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Step 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 10 months ago | parent [-]

A 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 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		If 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.