The counterargument I heard recently is that what if doing something with your body ends up causing harm to others. E.g. you suddenly lose the ability to drive coherently. I agree everyone should do whatever they want, but if you drive drunk you're guilty because you should've known better, it's impossible to get a driver's license and not know you're not allowed to drive drunk. But if you do something experimental and are not aware you are no longer capable of driving, are you really at fault? And even if yes, is it that satisfying someone goes to jail considering maybe it would be better if a family of four in the other car is still alive.

Real life is more complicated.

▲

HarHarVeryFunny 3 days ago | parent [-]

We're not talking about a world that only has one law "you can do what you like with your own body".

Other laws still exist too.

Owning pillows is legal. Killing people is not legal. Just because owning a pillow is legal doesn't mean you can smother someone to death with it.

I would hope that someone diagnosed with a mental disorder such as Alzheimers would lose their drivers license (not sure if this is the case), but if they were subsequently cured and passed a new driving test, then would you have a problem with that?

▲

locallost 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't know why you're giving me the pillow example, when it's the exact thing I discuss. You know you are not supposed to drive drunk. You know a drug you get from the doctor has side effects, the doctor will warn you. Those things are enough for most people not to take their chances, for people stupid enough to drive drunk, throw the book at them.

You can throw the book at people taking any experimental drug that can have a gazillion side effects they have no clue about, but this doesn't help the people that might get killed because someone experimented with a cure, did not want to harm anyone but still did. People are not numbers, but real parts of the world and someone else's lives. Laws are there to keep people safe, but are just the last line of defense.

You can take both positions, but your argument is overly simplistic.

▲

2 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

HarHarVeryFunny 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I've have no idea what point you are trying to make. You appear to be attacking some strawman position of your own making, but the lack of logic and connection to what is being discussed is so vague that it is honestly hard to tell.

I gave the pillow example because it clearly shows how ridiculous it is to link things like this together. Your arguing that people should be denied experimental Alzheimers surgery because (paraphrasing) "maybe they'll feel cured, but won't be, and will kill someone in a car accident" (WTF?!), is no different to arguing that people should not be allowed to buy pillows because they might use them to smother someone.

Making laws against killing or endangering others (driving impaired, etc) is fine and desirable. Using the need for such laws to apparently try to make a case for banning experimental surgery is absurd.

	▲	locallost 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, I specifically referenced side effects of taking medication. In this case experimental medication which means we don't even know what all the side effects are.