View Poll Results:

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Condemn the practice, and try to block its adoption in the US (or your home country). You want nothing to do with it.

    4 11.76%
  • Condemn the practice and block its adoption in your home country, but allow people to take the treatment overseas.

    0 0%
  • Allow it in your own country, but not take the treatment yourself due to moral objections.

    1 2.94%
  • Support adoption of the treatment and take it yourself. At least something good came out of a horrible situation.

    27 79.41%
  • Other.

    2 5.88%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: science vs. morality

  1. #1

    science vs. morality

    Here's a question for everybody, since it's already come up indirectly in other discussions we've had on this board.

    What would you do if you found out that some scientific breakthrough which had potential benefit for thousands of people had been achieved using unethical or immoral means? I mean, say a cure for SCI (or ALS, or some other horrible condition) were found, but only after it turned out the scientists were experimenting on concentration camp victims or something (assume it was a privately funded study conducted in a foreign country that didn't have a human rights policy)? Assume also that the actual treatment itself is effective and safe, and can be applied without further experimentation on unwilling human subjects.

    I am making this a bit more extreme than our current stem cell debate just to see what people's philosophical views are. At what point do moral objections outweigh potential practical benefits, or do the ends always justify the means?

  2. #2
    VERY good question Starlight. People think hard about your answer before you vote!

  3. #3
    Senior Member Tara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    399
    If the research has already been done and proven effective, What good would it do anyone to refuse the benefits to others? Why allow more people to suffer because you disagree with the way it was discovered?

  4. #4
    Hmmm, this is a tough one. I would accept the treatment ONLY if the victims of the experiments received international support, a formal apology and financial and medical compensation. The government responsible for the experiments would have to be sanctioned and the doctors involved jailed.

    I voted "other" by the way.

    [This message was edited by seneca on Oct 14, 2002 at 07:24 PM.]

  5. #5
    I'd take it myself no question. Then when cured I'd fight the ensuing battles using the results (a cure) as my foundation.

    Once momentum started capitalism would swoop in, commercialize the process, justify the means and promote a better quality of life for those who had suffered.

    Personally, with all of the moral hypocrisy that goes on among the "highly moral" I'm perplexed. Simply, I believe in good. A cure is good. Morality is subjective and very much a product of time and place (what's good yesterday is bad today and vice versa).

    Sighting the recent Dolly the sheep cloning article I wasn't shocked. Cloning everything, including humans is coming. The science is there. Is it right or wrong? who am I to judge. If I was an amputee and could clone myself a new arm, would I do it? Yes. Could someone who has two arms judge me as immoral? Yes But do they really understand my circumstances? Probably not.

    It's very subjective and a hard call to make. I hate a suffering human condition more than anything. Alzheimer's, cancer, sci, anything that negatively affects our health and I will do what it takes, if its within my power to change that.

    People who don't want to cure diseases, etc. because it violates their morality and ethics are generally, imo, not the ones suffering from any of them. Notice I said generally, not everyone. There are exceptions to everything and everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Who am I to judge?

    Good question SLA.

    Onward and Upward!

  6. #6
    Senior Member Scorpion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,887

    The fact is...

    Research gathered through the torture & murder of Jews by the Nazis during the Holocaust has already been used by scientists for beneficial purposes. It's horrible, despicable and evil what was done by the Nazis, but I believe it's in society's best interest to learn from tragic occurences in every way possible.

    I voted for the 4th option.

    ~Rus

    It is strange the way the ignorant and inexperienced so often and so undeservedly succeed when the informed and the experienced fail. ~ Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Senior Member TD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ, USA
    Posts
    649

    Excellent question, SLA

    As has been pointed out, we currently use a lot of technological breakthroughs that occurred through experimentation at the hands of the Nazis. How the info was obtained is despicable. Using the knowledge gained by their methods should never be questioned if the knowledge is used to the benefit of all mankind.

    Those who voted any other than #4:

    are ignorant of how many of our current medical advances were made by the Nazis and their ilk.

    have never had to face life after a loved one has incurred a devastating illness or injury.

    have never had to face their own mortality.

    "And so it begins."

  8. #8
    Senior Member alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    6,682
    What's done is done. Not taking advantage of what was learned won't help those who suffered in that learning. If any of those people can somehow be compensated, they should be.

  9. #9

    Osama Bin Laden POW's

    How about taking Bin Laden POW's, have Dr Young build a giant rat impactor and we could start our own clinical trials :> )

    Russ Byrd

  10. #10
    Senior Member mk99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    toronto, canada
    Posts
    3,494
    If a car accident results in the death of someone, we will use their organs. Nobody in their right mind would say that this is a "Slippery Slope" and that poor people will soon be killed just to harvest their organs or that we are exploiting life for the living. It's a stupid argument and a non-issue.

    Yet this is exactly what is happenening with "controversial" issues such as ESC. Is the world really a better place by leftover embryos being put in the garbage as opposed to getting something out of it BEFORE it goes in the garbage? I continue to not get it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •