[kirse]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that harvesting a batch of puppies for organs/cells probably has far fewer ethical considerations than when messing with people.

Since you're all about decreasing the cost of experiments and regulation for humans though, I take it you are going to be one of the first to sign up for the next generation of human experiments that have little to no regulatory standards?

All these people complaining about lack of progress in regulated human bio-sciences could probably be put to good use. I think it's pretty easy to examine that increasing the supply of humans willing to advance science in the name of unregulated testing would rapidly drop costs. So let's sign all these complainers up and get them what they want!

[biohacker42]

If I may correct you.

The ethics of messing with people are not the main barrier, they are no barrier. It's the legal restrictions - the government regulations which make any kind of messing with perfectly willing humans very costly and time intensive.

Since you're all about decreasing the cost of experiments and regulation for humans though, I take it you are going to be one of the first to sign up for the next generation of human experiments that have little to no regulatory standards?

Yep.

But willing volunteers are not in shortage and are also no barrier to the advancement of science. It is once again the regulations, their cost is to the cost of paying human drug testers as Everest is to an ant hill.

In other words: You can't give me what I want, because the government is protecting me from me. Only in recent years has the FDA been willing to soften its restriction if I happen to be dying, but even then only if I'm really close to the end. Then I can legally try the cutting edge drugs.

[kirse]

The ethics of messing with people are not the main barrier, they are no barrier. It's the legal restrictions

But ethics and morality ARE the barrier. Sure, you have plenty of scientists who wouldn't blink an eye before doing just about anything to a fellow human, but ethics are most certainly the explanation for why these legal restrictions and government regulations are put into place. Just about every core law and regulation put into place has a basis in an ethical judgment.

because the government is protecting me from me.

You act as if this is a bad thing? Personally I prefer it that scientists far more knowledgeable than myself are doing their best to ensure that I'm not brushing my teeth with lead-laced toothpaste, drinking milk that hasn't been properly prepared, helping to ensure that processes are standardized and providing me with convenient ways to know that I'm not unknowingly poisoning myself, etc. The FDA has done far, far more good than harm in this case.

I think if people want to do testing then they should leave the USA. Get out of my country, I don't want it to be legal for scientists to perform borderline unethical treatment on my citizens. Go to China for that, it's really that easy.

[jacoblyles]

>"The FDA has done far, far more good than harm in this case."

How sure are you of that? I am certain that the organization is structured to make many more type II than type I errors, and I would guess that type II errors cause at least the same magnitude of harm and they are, by their nature, much harder to measure.

Random paper on the topic: http://repositories.cdlib.org/pep/96-2/

[sho]

"I don't want it to be legal for scientists to perform borderline unethical treatment on my citizens."

Huh? You've got it completely backwards. What is really unethical is retarding process, and not allowing people to have the best possible medical care. If there's a huge breakthrough in medical technology - and stem cells appear to be such a breakthrough - by denying it to people without an excellent reason you are causing untold, needless suffering.

"Go to China for that, it's really that easy."

I never thought I'd see the day where an American told another to go to China to get the innovative medical care they need because the USA was too bogged down in bureaucratic mire. Is it opposite day or something?

[kirse]

What is really unethical is retarding process, and not allowing people to have the best possible medical care.

Oh, give me a break here. Take your emotions out of the argument. Cutting edge medical experimentation does not necessarily equal "best possible care".

And if by innovative medical care you mean human guinea pig, then by all means buy the ticket now and head over.

Is it really a problem to want to be on the "safe side" when dealing with medical treatments on humans? You're the one who has it backwards. In your convoluted sense of ethics you somehow equate "doing nothing" and "being cautious" with "doing harm". What sort of stupidity is that?

Do you consider yourself an unethical greedy person each time you deny a beggar money on the streets? Do you consider yourself doing harm if you deny tackling a robber who has a gun pointed at a bank teller? How selfish of you to eat three meals each day and deny food to the millions of starving children in Africa. In each of these situations you had the capability to help, yet you chose to deny it to those people and it resulted in needless suffering.

Am I correctly understanding your system of ethics where you are saying that choosing to do nothing = doing harm?

Even if "doing nothing" did equal "doing harm", I would be willing to wager that doing nothing and being cautious statistically does FAR LESS "harm" than attempting a number of untested medical experiments on human guinea pigs for the sake of trying to save one person's dying grandparent.

[sho]

"Cutting edge medical experimentation does not necessarily equal "best possible care"."

Give me a break. Didn't you read the article? Humans are waiting 2-3 years for a hip replacement; dogs are waiting one week. We're way past "experimentation".

I really don't know what you're imagining with all this talk of "human guinea pigs" etc. We're not talking about some crazy experimentation with live subjects, companies with carte blanche to do what they will. We're talking about new remedies, with high success rates in (genetically very similar) animals, which really need to be investigated.

"Am I correctly understanding your system of ethics where you are saying that choosing to do nothing = doing harm?"

Your examples are all biased. If you really do have the ability to apprehend an armed robber with no risk to yourself, then of course you should. The Africa situation is complex and it's not a matter of money but if you could really press a button and just fix it all, of course you'd be derelict in your duty if you didn't press that button.

The problem is the government isn't doing "nothing", it's actively retarding progress. I wish they would do nothing.

You seem to have this image in your head of some kind of large scale Nazi medical experimentation or something. I assure you that is not the case, and not what I am talking about. It is illegal to even research this shit, even if it works fine in animals, even if the patient is desperate and willing to take the risk.

The government is actively impeding this research and, by extension, medical progress. This is abhorrent and needs to change. Luckily, other countries are picking up the torch and soon you may indeed see sick Americans heading overseas for the treatment they need as America slides further into a complacent abyss of risk-averse stagnation.

[sgibat]

I'm not sure which fallacy you're committing, but I'm sure it is one. Someone can wish for others to have the ability to make certain choices while not necessarily wishing to make that choice themselves.

Maybe your parent post doesn't want to, but I'm sure lots of very sick people would be willing to try almost anything.