zlacker

Not moving fast and not breaking things means people die slowly and excruciatingly. Because the solutions for their medical issues were not developed in time.

Inaction has a price, you know.

>>ACCoun+(OP)
It has a price for the person with the condition. For the person developing the cure it does not (except perhaps opportunity cost, money not made that could have been), whereas killing their patients can have an extremely high one.

>>ACCoun+(OP)
You’re starting to sound terrifyingly like an unethical scientist. We know how that ends, we’ve been down that road before, and we know why it is a terrible idea.

>>jama21+VH
There is a lot of space between “persons with a debilitating condition are prohibited from choosing to take a risky treatment that might help” and “hey let’s feed these prisoners smallpox-laced cheese for a week and see what happens”.

The “no harm, ever” crowd does not have a monopoly on ethics.

>>ACCoun+(OP)
The majority of treatments people ever thought up and think up today are somewhere between useless and terrible ideas. Whatever you think is looking so exciting right now, there have been a million other things that looked just as exciting before. They do not anymore.

We didn't come up with these rules around medical treatments out of nowhere, humanity has learned them through painful lessons.

The medical field used to operate very differently and I do not want to go back to those times.