Remix.run Logo
InDubioProRubio 8 months 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 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

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

nkrisc 8 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 8 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 8 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.