[kauffj]

> There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs

This is trivially false, as people accept money for health risk every day (see: working in medicine, transportation, mining, leaving your house, etc.)

[rglullis]

The risks you mentioned are in no way a direct consequence of the actions people take. No one goes to work in medicine with the purpose of getting infected.

Do not think this rhetorical BS trap is believable for a second. This is the kind of crappy thinking and morality that economists and Robin Hanson proponents defend and pat themselves in the back for sounding oh-so-smart.

[ls612]

Regardless of whether death is a direct consequence or an outside risk from the action you’re still just as dead. It might matter for the court system assigning blame but it doesn’t matter from an economic perspective.

[rglullis]

> It might matter for the court system assigning blame but it doesn’t matter from an economic perspective.

Right. To which I say that anyone that only looks at things from the economic perspective is an immoral hack that should never be listened to.

Every larger issue, dear to either conservatives or progressives alike, can find its roots in and be justified by some moron looking for solutions exclusively via an economic perspective. It's a danger to society, plain and simple.

[wtetzner]

People accept money to take part in trials all the time.