Skip to content
 
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.

(EurekAlert)   Crises are no excuse for lowering scientific standards say increasingly ignored ethicists   (eurekalert.org) divider line
    More: Fake, Clinical trial, Carnegie Mellon University, Medicine, global research community, Association of American Universities, clinical studies, health systems, Carnegie Institute of Technology  
•       •       •

296 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Apr 2020 at 6:09 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



12 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-04-24 5:39:13 PM  
After doctors actually did drug trials on drugs that Trump toured with no proof, these people need to raise holy hell with what they're saying, repeatedly.
 
2020-04-24 6:30:07 PM  
It is also not ethical to just let people die who are willing to try a promising treatment.
 
2020-04-24 7:34:27 PM  
In wars, governments are in the practice of ordering innocent people to give their lives.

It's a sliding scale.
 
2020-04-24 7:35:32 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: It is also not ethical to just let people die who are willing to try a promising treatment.


The treatment has to have some basis in science, not just guesses or a "feeling" by the "president." Because that just happened.
 
2020-04-24 7:40:53 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: It is also not ethical to just let people die who are willing to try a promising treatment.


It's called not preying on the desperate.
 
2020-04-24 8:34:26 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: It is also not ethical to just let people die who are willing to try a promising treatment.


That completely misses the point. The issue isn't denying a clinical trial or someone's access to treatment, but trialing medications that have little likelihood of success, over-generalizing results, and not clearly reporting limitations. While it's not ethical to deny treatment, it surely isn't ethical to let people die due to taking a medication recommend based on unsubstantiated and poorly vetted results from a hastily clad together clinical trial.
 
2020-04-24 8:41:03 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: It is also not ethical to just let people die who are willing to try a promising treatment.



But there needs to be informed consent, and the doctor still has a responsibility to look out for the patient's interest, even if the patient is a dying moron.

The doctor has to have reason to believe it will help and do no harm. We don't just test stuff on the dying because they are dying anyway. A risky treatment could worsen someone's suffering.

I know the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy, but... I think we want doctors to be steadfast in their ethics. They need to approach every patient with no wiggle room in their attitude.
 
2020-04-24 9:00:05 PM  

This text is now purple: In wars, governments are in the practice of ordering innocent people to give their lives.


That wasn't how General Patton put it.
 
2020-04-24 9:16:55 PM  
Ethics is just a phony liberal arts stuff below real STEM supermen, and good Christians© learn their morals bent over an altar.
 
2020-04-24 9:27:43 PM  

jso2897: This text is now purple: In wars, governments are in the practice of ordering innocent people to give their lives.

That wasn't how General Patton put it.


He died in a war, too
 
2020-04-25 12:01:42 AM  

Straight Outta Hate: It is also not ethical to just let people die who are willing to try a promising treatment.


Ah, the argument used by the patent medicine folks as they were parading one customer after another through the witness stand at trials. Some of those witnesses actually survived the trials, others died of the things they were taking the medications for.

At the end of the day, most people aren't competent enough in pharmacology and medicine to make informed decisions about this stuff.

What constitutes a "promising treatment"? How do you decide whether something is a "promising treatment" vs "damages your organs"? How many people can recognize that a claimed chemical pathway acted upon by the treatment is either ineffective or can introduce worse problems?

I mean, I'm sure there are a few who could do that, but I know I couldn't judge the validity of a white paper detailing the biochemistry and the importance of various protein chains acted upon by a drug, nor the relative importance of specific gene activation sites impacted by drugs or bugs.

And that kind of thing is what determines what a "promising treatment" is in today's world.
 
2020-04-25 8:21:05 AM  
a.) You can't BS reality
b.) Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
c.) All the laws of nature are all in effect 100% of the time

Let your ethical or scientific standards slide, and one of those will bite you.  Hard.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.