If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   Costa Rica shuts down stem cell clinic that sells experimental treatments to rich tourists. Says health minister: "This isn't allowed in any serious country in the world"   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 56
    More: Interesting, Costa Rican, embryonic stem cells, health minister, bone marrow, spinal injuries, stem cells, tourist destinations, anecdotal evidence  
•       •       •

1275 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Jun 2010 at 5:18 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-06-08 03:41:54 PM
Not to say they should be freely available without warning, but I find it kind of disturbing that "experimental" is a bad adjective when people use it about medical treatments. Dear god, that experimental drug might prolong life or alleviate suffering in people perfectly willing to accept the risks when informed about them, please help us FDA!
 
2010-06-08 04:02:48 PM
Barakku: Not to say they should be freely available without warning, but I find it kind of disturbing that "experimental" is a bad adjective when people use it about medical treatments. Dear god, that experimental drug might prolong life or alleviate suffering in people perfectly willing to accept the risks when informed about them, please help us FDA!

Exactly.

The "precautionary principle" applied to medicine is nothing less than murder.
 
2010-06-08 04:18:55 PM
I think it could be argued now that medical technology and research can easily move faster than the rate of governmental regulation. So currently the limiting factor in the rate of medical progress is the current regulation set up. Something needs to change. I'm not arguing for a complete abolishment of medical regulations, but the system as it stands now is broken and needs to be fixed. I think in the long term that would benefit us more than the attempts to reform our health care insurance system, which is also broken.
 
2010-06-08 04:46:07 PM
TheOmni: I think it could be argued now that medical technology and research can easily move faster than the rate of governmental regulation. So currently the limiting factor in the rate of medical progress is the current regulation set up. Something needs to change. I'm not arguing for a complete abolishment of medical regulations, but the system as it stands now is broken and needs to be fixed. I think in the long term that would benefit us more than the attempts to reform our health care insurance system, which is also broken.

Maybe, just maybe, decisions weighing the possible costs and benefits of cutting-edge medicines and procedures should be made by, and I know this sounds crazy, doctors and patients on a case-by-case basis, rather than a centralized bureaucracy that is inevitably ignorant of the local knowledge on which such decisions should be based.

Medicine is one of the worst possible areas to apply a "one-size-fits-all" approach. These are the most profoundly individual and private decisions that can be made, and for some distant, uncaring bureaucrat to limit your options "for your own good" is unacceptable. And that's what you get with either governmental controls or their corporatist cousin, government-imposed-and-subsidized "insurance" middlemen. (I say "insurance" because what we actually have is a stupid system of medical pre-payment. Actual insurance makes economic sense when it is for large and unpredictable costs, not for routine care) As always, the answer is freedom of individual choice, both for the patient and the medical provider.

The only possible justification for interference is in the case of genuinely contagious diseases, which pose a threat to non-consenting third parties. And to the degree that it's an actual possibility and not just entertainment myth, yes the government has a role to play in stopping the mad scientist from unleashing the everyone-dies-super-virus or what have you. But the private agreement between a patient and a doctor to do X in exchange for Y- even if X is dangerous for the patient, indeed even if X is explicitly suicide- should not be subject to coercive interference.
 
2010-06-08 05:23:57 PM
i110.photobucket.com

/just because
 
2010-06-08 05:26:00 PM
Churchill2004: TheOmni: I think it could be argued now that medical technology and research can easily move faster than the rate of governmental regulation. So currently the limiting factor in the rate of medical progress is the current regulation set up. Something needs to change. I'm not arguing for a complete abolishment of medical regulations, but the system as it stands now is broken and needs to be fixed. I think in the long term that would benefit us more than the attempts to reform our health care insurance system, which is also broken.

Maybe, just maybe, decisions weighing the possible costs and benefits of cutting-edge medicines and procedures should be made by, and I know this sounds crazy, doctors and patients on a case-by-case basis, rather than a centralized bureaucracy that is inevitably ignorant of the local knowledge on which such decisions should be based.

Medicine is one of the worst possible areas to apply a "one-size-fits-all" approach. These are the most profoundly individual and private decisions that can be made, and for some distant, uncaring bureaucrat to limit your options "for your own good" is unacceptable. And that's what you get with either governmental controls or their corporatist cousin, government-imposed-and-subsidized "insurance" middlemen. (I say "insurance" because what we actually have is a stupid system of medical pre-payment. Actual insurance makes economic sense when it is for large and unpredictable costs, not for routine care) As always, the answer is freedom of individual choice, both for the patient and the medical provider.

The only possible justification for interference is in the case of genuinely contagious diseases, which pose a threat to non-consenting third parties. And to the degree that it's an actual possibility and not just entertainment myth, yes the government has a role to play in stopping the mad scientist from unleashing the everyone-dies-super-virus or what have you. But the private agreement between a patient and a doctor to do X in exchange for Y- even if X is dangerous for the patient, indeed even if X is explicitly suicide- should not be subject to coercive interference.


I pretty much agree with this. I didn't state it clearly, but I wasn't arguing against getting government out either. I think reform of current inefficient government regulations or removal of them in favor of increased Doctor-Patient decisions or even a private regulatory (like Underwriter Laboratories) are all better solutions than what we have now.
 
2010-06-08 05:28:46 PM
WHYYYYYYYYYYY!???????? WHY DO THEY HATE SCIENCEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAARRRRRGGGGGLBLBLBLBLLSARAHPALINGEORGEBUSHCREATIONISTSWEHAT ERELIGIONBLAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGG!!!!
 
2010-06-08 05:41:37 PM
GilRuiz1: WHYYYYYYYYYYY!???????? WHY DO THEY HATE SCIENCEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAARRRRRGGGGGLBLBLBLBLLSARAHPALINGEORGEBUSHCREATIONISTSWEHAT ERELIGIONBLAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGG!!!!

Too early, we haven't started hating on religion yet.
 
2010-06-08 05:42:38 PM
A lot of these kind of "clinics" have no more to do with science or medicine than a guy selling snake oil. They are scams preying on the scared and desperate.
 
2010-06-08 05:44:21 PM
"This isn't allowed in any serious country in the world"

Quite right, this has gotten entirely too silly.

/Thankfully hasn't gotten into standing-at-the-back-dressed-stupidly-and-looking-stupid territory yet
 
2010-06-08 05:46:20 PM
Yeah, and most serious countries have a military. You know, at least a tank and a guy with a machine gun or something.

I lol'ed that remark.
 
2010-06-08 05:52:08 PM
TheOmni: I think it could be argued now that medical technology and research can easily move faster than the rate of governmental regulation. So currently the limiting factor in the rate of medical progress is the current regulation set up. Something needs to change. I'm not arguing for a complete abolishment of medical regulations, but the system as it stands now is broken and needs to be fixed. I think in the long term that would benefit us more than the attempts to reform our health care insurance system, which is also broken.

I'm convinced that the west is going to miss the next big wave of medicine because of the levels of regulation.
 
2010-06-08 05:56:21 PM
But it's not a serious country, it's Costa Rica, which is in Latin America, where we put all of the silly countries.
 
2010-06-08 05:58:37 PM
Silly clinic. All they need to do is mix their stem cells with a bit of ginseng start calling it a "Natural Herbal Remedy" and the FDA will back off.
 
2010-06-08 05:59:54 PM
Baryogenesis: Too early, we haven't started hating on religion yet.

Oh cripes! Sorry, just a reflex action. My bad.

I'll just check back in later.
 
2010-06-08 06:07:13 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: A lot of these kind of "clinics" have no more to do with science or medicine than a guy selling snake oil. They are scams preying on the scared and desperate.

Pretty much this. It isn't even about regulation of medicine so much as regulation of business and not allowing businesses to engage in deceptive practices.
 
2010-06-08 06:08:41 PM
I agree in theory with everyone here. But let me play devil's advocate. The interest in many experimental treatments would shift the main impetus in convincing patients to participate from offering them the best treatment option available to gaining another vehicle for data in your research, would it not? What would be in place to prevent healthcare institutions from slightly-to-moderately exaggerating the promise of experimental treatments to patients in a way that makes them think these experimental treatments are on an equal plane of viability with studied treatments, when in fact we do not know that they are?

People that are desperately looking for answers need as neutral an information base as possible in making life-affecting decisions about their healthcare treatment.
 
2010-06-08 06:09:52 PM
You know what else is unsafe? The disease from which you are already dying.
 
2010-06-08 06:20:43 PM
BlazeTrailer: I agree in theory with everyone here. But let me play devil's advocate. The interest in many experimental treatments would shift the main impetus in convincing patients to participate from offering them the best treatment option available to gaining another vehicle for data in your research, would it not? What would be in place to prevent healthcare institutions from slightly-to-moderately exaggerating the promise of experimental treatments to patients in a way that makes them think these experimental treatments are on an equal plane of viability with studied treatments, when in fact we do not know that they are?

People that are desperately looking for answers need as neutral an information base as possible in making life-affecting decisions about their healthcare treatment.


Exactly. This is the giant, glaring reason that the amount of regulation we have is required. It could certainly be streamlined quite a bit, but saying that it's the only thing standing in the way of progress would be like saying that the abolition of slavery is the only reason we can't manufacture goods as cheaply as other countries. Progress is important, but not at the cost of our humanity.

If we weaken/do away with research regulations, how long before poor single mothers are happily accepting $500 to participate in a study of a new morning sickness medication that in mice only created a _few_ flipper babies?

Like BlazeTrailer I'm not at all anti-science or fearmongering, I do agree that "experimental" is too much a negative word now, it's just pretty evident that many big corps will take all the liberties they can get away with to turn a profit. When it's peoples' lives/health at stake that's not something we should treat lightly.

re: doctors being the white knights of fair and equitable patient treatment, just because a person has an MD it doesn't mean they are immune to the lure of higher share prices in the company they work for/are a partner in, or bigger grants if they can crank out positive results quickly rather than safely.
 
2010-06-08 06:20:59 PM
Restriction of stem cell research is motivated by the "DEAD BABIES WARGARBL" bullshiat and that sucks, but using "anecdotal evidence for a treatment's efficacy" is equally bullshiat. To determine whether something works or not, you construct an experiment using a negative control group and you DOCUMENT EVERYTHING. So in this particular instance, closing the clinic was a good move.
 
2010-06-08 06:23:01 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: A lot of these kind of "clinics" have no more to do with science or medicine than a guy selling snake oil. They are scams preying on the scared and desperate.

That's really just another symptom. Legitimate clinics in "serious countries" aren't allowed to do the research or offer the treatments, but that doesn't stop the demand. So it falls to the snake oil salesmen to fill the niche.
 
2010-06-08 06:23:41 PM
img2.timeinc.net
approves.
 
2010-06-08 06:30:04 PM
Costa Rica shuts down stem cell clinic that sells experimental treatments to stupid, uneducated, rich tourists


fixed it.
 
2010-06-08 06:30:39 PM
Fools and their money are soon parted...........
 
2010-06-08 06:36:19 PM
More countries would be a lot better off if they just admitted that they weren't serious countries. "Welcome to Belize. We hope you enjoy your stay, but fair warning, we're not exactly what you'd call a serious country. If you need anything serious, the serious part of Mexico is about four hundred miles thataway. No, I don't need to see a passport."
 
2010-06-08 06:47:22 PM
BlazeTrailer: I agree in theory with everyone here. But let me play devil's advocate. The interest in many experimental treatments would shift the main impetus in convincing patients to participate from offering them the best treatment option available to gaining another vehicle for data in your research, would it not? What would be in place to prevent healthcare institutions from slightly-to-moderately exaggerating the promise of experimental treatments to patients in a way that makes them think these experimental treatments are on an equal plane of viability with studied treatments, when in fact we do not know that they are?

Good point... I mean, if people are well informed of the risks, then they should be able to make informed decisions. BUT... we're so desensitized to warning labels and such that we will happily sign a paper that says something might kill us without actually considering that it might kill us. I mean... can you even have an appendectomy without basically agreeing that you might die? We need a way to make sure people are informed of risks without over-scaring people every time we want to do something.

There's still a sign at every gas station in town telling you to turn your cell phone off even though that little kaboom myth has been debunked over and over...

As an aside, as someone against embryo-farming, I'm thrilled that in at least in 25 posts, this thread is still a rational discussion about stem cell treatment (or hell, any experimental treatment for that matter, since the type of treatment really isn't the crux of the topic). Let's stay classy.
 
2010-06-08 06:49:07 PM
Barakku: Not to say they should be freely available without warning, but I find it kind of disturbing that "experimental" is a bad adjective when people use it about medical treatments. Dear god, that experimental drug might prolong life or alleviate suffering in people perfectly willing to accept the risks when informed about them, please help us FDA!

It's always interesting to me that it's "her body, her choice" when it comes to abortion, but suddenly my body is not mine when it comes to euthanasia or experimental drugs.

Although I can understand the state's position if it ends up being stuck caring for a vegetable if I fark up.
 
2010-06-08 06:58:11 PM
BlazeTrailer: But let me play devil's advocate.... etc.

chaunceymo: If we weaken/do away with research regulations, how long before poor single mothers are happily accepting $500 to participate in a study of a new morning sickness medication that in mice only created a _few_ flipper babies?

What you're both talking about is informed consent, which no one wants to do away with. Fraud- which knowingly misrepresenting the risks of a procedure would no doubt be- is punishable even under the most anarcho-libertarian conceptions of justice. Requiring informed consent is a wholly different beast from having the FDA insist nothing can be done until it approves of both their safety and efficacy. The latter is what I'm criticizing.

Within the rubric of informed consent, there should not be third-party-imposed limitations on what you can consent to. If you think you have the right to commit suicide- and I do- then it seems rather absurd to prevent people from undergoing procedures they want because it's "too dangerous" or "might not work", the two reasons the FDA and its equivalents use to do just that. Again, provided that it would be criminal if the patient wasn't told that how dangerous it is and that it might not work.
 
2010-06-08 07:01:04 PM
jonny_q: BlazeTrailer: I agree in theory with everyone here. But let me play devil's advocate. The interest in many experimental treatments would shift the main impetus in convincing patients to participate from offering them the best treatment option available to gaining another vehicle for data in your research, would it not? What would be in place to prevent healthcare institutions from slightly-to-moderately exaggerating the promise of experimental treatments to patients in a way that makes them think these experimental treatments are on an equal plane of viability with studied treatments, when in fact we do not know that they are?

Good point... I mean, if people are well informed of the risks, then they should be able to make informed decisions. BUT... we're so desensitized to warning labels and such that we will happily sign a paper that says something might kill us without actually considering that it might kill us. I mean... can you even have an appendectomy without basically agreeing that you might die? We need a way to make sure people are informed of risks without over-scaring people every time we want to do something.

There's still a sign at every gas station in town telling you to turn your cell phone off even though that little kaboom myth has been debunked over and over...

As an aside, as someone against embryo-farming, I'm thrilled that in at least in 25 posts, this thread is still a rational discussion about stem cell treatment (or hell, any experimental treatment for that matter, since the type of treatment really isn't the crux of the topic). Let's stay classy.


most people are pretty good arbiters of risk reward, i dont think anyones first option is some shady clinic in costa rica where you pay out of pocket, but if you are dying/disabled anyway, whats the problem.
 
2010-06-08 07:03:14 PM
Quantum Apostrophe: Although I can understand the state's position if it ends up being stuck caring for a vegetable if I fark up

This is a blank check for totalitarianism. "The state provides us with A, which we might need more of if we do X, therefore the state can/should prohibit/limit X". It's the authoritarianism inherent in the state providing A at common expense in the first place. Sometimes it might be a worthwhile trade-off- I'm certainly not going to make the Rothbardian argument for private, competing police forces and courts- but it's a trade-off that is all too often denied as irrational slippery-slope fearmongering.
 
2010-06-08 07:03:44 PM
Churchill2004: BlazeTrailer: But let me play devil's advocate.... etc.

chaunceymo: If we weaken/do away with research regulations, how long before poor single mothers are happily accepting $500 to participate in a study of a new morning sickness medication that in mice only created a _few_ flipper babies?

What you're both talking about is informed consent, which no one wants to do away with. Fraud- which knowingly misrepresenting the risks of a procedure would no doubt be- is punishable even under the most anarcho-libertarian conceptions of justice. Requiring informed consent is a wholly different beast from having the FDA insist nothing can be done until it approves of both their safety and efficacy. The latter is what I'm criticizing.

Within the rubric of informed consent, there should not be third-party-imposed limitations on what you can consent to. If you think you have the right to commit suicide- and I do- then it seems rather absurd to prevent people from undergoing procedures they want because it's "too dangerous" or "might not work", the two reasons the FDA and its equivalents use to do just that. Again, provided that it would be criminal if the patient wasn't told that how dangerous it is and that it might not work.


agree, newsletter, etc...
 
2010-06-08 07:14:05 PM
Churchill2004:
Within the rubric of informed consent, there should not be third-party-imposed limitations on what you can consent to. If you think you have the right to commit suicide- and I do- then it seems rather absurd to prevent people from undergoing procedures they want because it's "too dangerous" or "might not work", the two reasons the FDA and its equivalents use to do just that. Again, provided that it would be criminal if the patient wasn't told that how dangerous it is and that it might not work.

Gotcha. Again, I agree in principle, but a lot of the bureaucracy is folks enforcing informed consent and making sure everyone keeps honest, rather than simply keeping people from putting their own eyes out (figuratively).

There's also the additional sticky moral area of kids... minors generally cannot give informed consent, so the regulatory agencies tend to err on the side of not letting allowing any risky experimentation on them. It's one thing if you have 6 months to live and want to subject to yourself to a procedure that will either kill you instantly or prolong your life for 20 years with even chances, but whether or not someone should be allowed to make that decision for their children is a whole different bag of worms. That's an issue that, particularly as someone with no kids, I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole.
 
2010-06-08 07:27:22 PM
Just make a law that says medicine/drugs/treatments/procedures must be labeled clearly stating whether they are or are not approved by the FDA, and let the people decide which treatment avenues to pursue on their own, with the knowledge that the government has or has not vouched for the safety and efficacy of those treatments.
 
2010-06-08 08:05:41 PM
TheOmni: Churchill2004: TheOmni: I think it could be argued now that medical technology and research can easily move faster than the rate of governmental regulation. So currently the limiting factor in the rate of medical progress is the current regulation set up. Something needs to change. I'm not arguing for a complete abolishment of medical regulations, but the system as it stands now is broken and needs to be fixed. I think in the long term that would benefit us more than the attempts to reform our health care insurance system, which is also broken.

Maybe, just maybe, decisions weighing the possible costs and benefits of cutting-edge medicines and procedures should be made by, and I know this sounds crazy, doctors and patients on a case-by-case basis, rather than a centralized bureaucracy that is inevitably ignorant of the local knowledge on which such decisions should be based.

Medicine is one of the worst possible areas to apply a "one-size-fits-all" approach. These are the most profoundly individual and private decisions that can be made, and for some distant, uncaring bureaucrat to limit your options "for your own good" is unacceptable. And that's what you get with either governmental controls or their corporatist cousin, government-imposed-and-subsidized "insurance" middlemen. (I say "insurance" because what we actually have is a stupid system of medical pre-payment. Actual insurance makes economic sense when it is for large and unpredictable costs, not for routine care) As always, the answer is freedom of individual choice, both for the patient and the medical provider.

The only possible justification for interference is in the case of genuinely contagious diseases, which pose a threat to non-consenting third parties. And to the degree that it's an actual possibility and not just entertainment myth, yes the government has a role to play in stopping the mad scientist from unleashing the everyone-dies-super-virus or what have you. But the private agreement between a patient and a doctor to do X in exchange for Y- even if X is dangerous for the patient, indeed even if X is explicitly suicide- should not be subject to coercive interference.

I pretty much agree with this. I didn't state it clearly, but I wasn't arguing against getting government out either. I think reform of current inefficient government regulations or removal of them in favor of increased Doctor-Patient decisions or even a private regulatory (like Underwriter Laboratories) are all better solutions than what we have now.


Doctors don't have the time or the energy to give a shiat about you.
 
2010-06-08 08:35:30 PM
Barakku: Not to say they should be freely available without warning, but I find it kind of disturbing that "experimental" is a bad adjective when people use it about medical treatments. Dear god, that experimental drug might prolong life or alleviate suffering in people perfectly willing to accept the risks when informed about them, please help us FDA!

Or it might cause every organ in your body to shut down after a month of treatments, or might provoke a severe immune reaction that kills 5% of those treated, or it might disable part of your nervous system and leave you with out the use of your legs.

There are, you know, reasons and shiat why things that fundamentally alter biological processes in not-fully-understood ways are bound to a cautious approach before tossing a treatment randomly out into the market.

If you're going to die otherwise or something, consider volunteering for the trial, because a program allowing medical experimentation on foreign nationals is kinda... dodgy. At minimum.

Churchill2004:
Within the rubric of informed consent, there should not be third-party-imposed limitations on what you can consent to. If you think you have the right to commit suicide- and I do- then it seems rather absurd to prevent people from undergoing procedures they want because it's "too dangerous" or "might not work", the two reasons the FDA and its equivalents use to do just that. Again, provided that it would be criminal if the patient wasn't told that how dangerous it is and that it might not work.


That's great and all in theory, but what if you have, say, life insurance? Void it automatically for participating in medical trials, as in the case of suicide?

And how do you deal with the increased capacity for a bit of minor fraud being all that's necessary to void a murder investigation entirely? You're talking about a signature being all that's necessary to certify that you were willing to die...

Informed consent doesn't exist in a vacuum, there are other laws and practical considerations that run up against medical practices. Treating the question like it's just that simple is inaccurate, at minimum.
 
2010-06-08 08:42:42 PM
acchief: Just make a law that says medicine/drugs/treatments/procedures must be labeled clearly stating whether they are or are not approved by the FDA, and let the people decide which treatment avenues to pursue on their own, with the knowledge that the government has or has not vouched for the safety and efficacy of those treatments.

But that's simple and straight forward and even more scary, puts the responsibility (and thus power) back in the hands of the citizens.
 
2010-06-08 08:44:30 PM
Jim_Callahan: Or it might cause every organ in your body to shut down after a month of treatments, or might provoke a severe immune reaction that kills 5% of those treated, or it might disable part of your nervous system and leave you with out the use of your legs.

For some diseases, a 5% chance of death is sometimes worth a 20% chance of cure.

It's my life, and my body.
 
2010-06-08 08:45:29 PM
Churchill2004: Quantum Apostrophe: Although I can understand the state's position if it ends up being stuck caring for a vegetable if I fark up

This is a blank check for totalitarianism. "The state provides us with A, which we might need more of if we do X, therefore the state can/should prohibit/limit X". It's the authoritarianism inherent in the state providing A at common expense in the first place. Sometimes it might be a worthwhile trade-off- I'm certainly not going to make the Rothbardian argument for private, competing police forces and courts- but it's a trade-off that is all too often denied as irrational slippery-slope fearmongering.


As someone else asked, your newsletter please?
 
2010-06-08 08:47:13 PM
farkeruk: TheOmni: I think it could be argued now that medical technology and research can easily move faster than the rate of governmental regulation. So currently the limiting factor in the rate of medical progress is the current regulation set up. Something needs to change. I'm not arguing for a complete abolishment of medical regulations, but the system as it stands now is broken and needs to be fixed. I think in the long term that would benefit us more than the attempts to reform our health care insurance system, which is also broken.

I'm convinced that the west is going to miss the next big wave of medicine because of the levels of regulation.


They already are, look at the advancements coming out of european contries and asian countries where the regulations are different.
 
2010-06-08 08:49:24 PM
You know the great part about scamming terminally ill patients is, when they die you can claim they lived an extra day due to your treatments, that and the dead can't sue.
 
2010-06-08 09:01:46 PM
chaunceymo: Gotcha. Again, I agree in principle, but a lot of the bureaucracy is folks enforcing informed consent and making sure everyone keeps honest, rather than simply keeping people from putting their own eyes out (figuratively)

I disagree that that's what the bureaucracy now is focused on- the vast majority is testing for safety and efficacy before the procedure can even be legal. But, if a large and expensive government agency is the only effective way to combat fraud in the form of uninformed medical consents, then that is what is necessary. The government should have set goals and then collect and expend resources necessary to achieve that goal. But the mere matter of expense should not be raised as an objection against an otherwise legitimate goal.

chaunceymo: There's also the additional sticky moral area of kids...

Yes, but that's no more or less of an issue than now- where we already require informed consent.

Jim_Callahan: That's great and all in theory, but what if you have, say, life insurance? Void it automatically for participating in medical trials, as in the case of suicide?

I don't pretend to know how exactly that would be worked out. It would be up to the insurance company to decide what terms it wanted to offer in this kind of scenario. But it's not like we don't already have some medical testing already, and that some of that testing comes with a risk of death.

Jim_Callahan: And how do you deal with the increased capacity for a bit of minor fraud being all that's necessary to void a murder investigation entirely? You're talking about a signature being all that's necessary to certify that you were willing to die...

We already have procedures in place for certifying consent for a do-not-resuscitate order, and in Oregon for assisted suicide. Of course it takes more than just the patient signing a single form with no notarization, witnesses, etc.

Jim_Callahan: Informed consent doesn't exist in a vacuum, there are other laws and practical considerations that run up against medical practices. Treating the question like it's just that simple is inaccurate, at minimum

That's a very easy criticism to make and it sounds substantive even when it is completely unbacked, which is exactly what you've just done. The only alternative is to deny the right to consent to unapproved procedures- which is the status quo, and if you want that you should say so. But hand-waving "it's not that simple!" is not an argument.
 
2010-06-08 09:35:28 PM
What the fark, Fark? *No one* has a good screenshot of Farnsworth spending his Nixon bucks?
 
2010-06-08 09:46:28 PM
Since It hasn't been posted yet.
img.youtube.com
 
2010-06-08 10:04:52 PM
I support this. We need to build Health care city.!
 
2010-06-08 10:09:16 PM
Wasn't Costa Rica where Limbaugh said he'd go if heath care reform passed.

/it passed
//whar limbaugh?
 
2010-06-08 10:29:56 PM
Costa Rica are serious country.
This are serious thread.
 
2010-06-09 12:59:13 AM
GilRuiz1: Baryogenesis: Too early, we haven't started hating on religion yet.

Oh cripes! Sorry, just a reflex action. My bad.

I'll just check back in later.



Understandable reflex. The ARRRGPRAISACKKESCIENCE!IHATERELIGIONGRAKZOMGCAN'THAZNICETHINGS!!! wharrgarbl is inevitable.

Check back with them after dinner.

/hot - like toast with an image of Jesus on it
www.totalleh.com
 
2010-06-09 01:09:00 AM
kerpal32: GilRuiz1: Baryogenesis: Too early, we haven't started hating on religion yet.

Oh cripes! Sorry, just a reflex action. My bad.

I'll just check back in later.


Understandable reflex. The ARRRGPRAISACKKESCIENCE!IHATERELIGIONGRAKZOMGCAN'THAZNICETHINGS!!! wharrgarbl is inevitable.

Check back with them after dinner.

/hot - like toast with an image of Jesus on it


That is one great pic.

+1
 
2010-06-09 07:57:52 AM
This just in: Mexico is not a "serious" country.

/stem cell clinics everywhere...
 
2010-06-09 08:20:10 AM
So I guess that make Germany a silly country also?
The excel stem cell clinic in dusseldorf would like your $20k please.
I've been to the clinic in costa rica they had a lab the size of a walk in closet.


/not for me
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report