by Miki » Tue 05 Sep 2006, 15:42:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nwildmand', 'w')hile your case is sound miki it does not include the people who did live because of medicine/treatment. they are carriers of the trait and are able to pass it on to another genereation.
It is my understanding that current knowledge on genetics is so limited, that almost nothing can be done about most genetic malformations. They can certainly improve their quality of life, but not "cure" them, or even ensure that they will live longer.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he only way to be for sure is to not treat the disease and see if they live, something i doubt you would endorse
Not only me. The kind of study you're suggesting violates the basic ethical principles that need to be respected for any scientific study to be funded and published.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')ake haemophilia for example. for a long time males had little if any chance at survival. that is not the case today with modern medicine. an infected male will pass those traits on. there is no question to this.
I'm not an expert in genetics, but I do know one thing: just because someone doesn't have a disease, it doesn't mean the person does not have the genes for that disease. Two people that don't have a genetic disease may marry and have a child with that disease. Just like if one person with a genetic disease marries a healthy one, it is possible that none of their kids would have the disease. If both people have the disease, the chances increase, but even then the probability of having a sick kid is not 100%--the exact probability depending on the "genetic charge" of the disease.
Thus, even if we let all the people with a genetic malformation die, there would still be many of us carrying the recessive gene for that disease and marrying others that also have the recessive gene. Unless you're planning to kill everyone with a recessive gene for the disease, killing the sick wouldn't be the smartest strategy.
IMO, the best (and most ethical) way to reduce the incidence of these diseases is to learn to manipulate genes in order to prevent these malformations. As that will take a long time, I think the best one can do now is to use genetic counseling, so that two people that have similar genetic defects won't marry, or that if they do marry, they'll be aware of what's to come.
Falcon: I agree that pollutants (and especially preservatives/colorants) probably have a lot to do with Cancer. However, genetics also play a great role. There are many studies supporting that fact.
As for why people did not have cancer 100 years ago, it is very simple: people used to die from the flu back then, so they didn't live enough to have Cancer. Keep in mind that antibiotics were discovered in the early 20th century (1920s?).
Roger: I'm not one to talk in blacks and whites, except when it comes to ethical matters. I was trying to show you that your position was too radical. In your original post you said that one should not cure diseases so as to pay external debts. That is a very "black and white" statement. You never mentioned that you were referring only to some diseases.
I personally think it's unethical to let someone die of *any* disease.
by rogerhb » Tue 05 Sep 2006, 16:48:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', 'I') personally think it's unethical to let someone die of *any* disease.
Even if it's
(a) terminal
(b) their wish to die?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', 'I')n your original post you said that one should not cure diseases so as to pay external debts.
What I am saying is that healthcare is another bottomless pit, and future generations will pay dearly for our current waste.
If you want everyone to live for ever then put everyone in a coma.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
by Falconoffury » Tue 05 Sep 2006, 17:08:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for why people did not have cancer 100 years ago, it is very simple: people used to die from the flu back then, so they didn't live enough to have Cancer. Keep in mind that antibiotics were discovered in the early 20th century (1920s?).
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
"If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head," the protesters chant
-
Falconoffury
- Expert
-
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: Tue 25 May 2004, 03:00:00
-
by MonteQuest » Tue 05 Sep 2006, 21:43:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', ' ')I personally think it's unethical to let someone die of *any* disease.
Even if not doing so causes even more to die as a result of breeding without restraint?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by Miki » Wed 06 Sep 2006, 09:02:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'E')ven if it's
(a) terminal
(b) their wish to die?
OK. Let me rephrase that: I think it's unethical to let die anyone who doesn't want to die. I also think it's unethical to kill the person even if he/she wants to die. If they kill themselves, that's another matter. But even in that case, one should try to persuade them. Most people that commit suicide do so in the midst of an episode of depression, and in those instances the person's judgement is not "normal". In other words, the only ethical situation in my mind would be if: a)the disease is terminal; b)the person wants to die; c)the person will kill him/herself; d)the person's judgement is not impaired by a mental disease.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat I am saying is that healthcare is another bottomless pit, and future generations will pay dearly for our current waste.
See, that's where you lose me. Are you talking about all heathcare or about the people who want to die? Or about the ones that are in comma atached to machines?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you want everyone to live for ever then put everyone in a coma.
I'd like everyone to live forever, but not in a comma. Talk about black and white...
Montequest: the ethical solution to the problem you pose is not to let people die, but to educate and help those nations where birth rates are out of control. I grew up in Peru where 60% of the people live below the poverty line. Yet, each family has an average of 4 kids or so. The main reason was not that people wanted to have all those kids, but that they did not know about basic birth control methods! The same applies to eg, Africa, where both ignorance and high birth rates coexist. You can let millions die, but if 4 million are born for every million that dies, what's the point?
Time for the US to cut their "donations" to Israel and invest them in the places where they are really needed. Do you know how many birth control campaigns and food for the poor could be funded with the billions that the US spends on imperialist enterprises and war crimes (aka, preemptive wars)?
Falcon:my explanation was not simplistic. It was based on available evidence. You're invited to review the research in cancer/public health and find out for yourself that most people that have cancer don't get the disease when they're young (the average age for most cancers is 50s) . Then look at the life expectancy of people living before the 1900s, and reach your own conclusions. I did not affirm that this was the only cause of cancer; I just pointed out that this factor is very important to understand why the incidence of cancer was much lower a hundred years ago.
Here's a huge study based on people from 41 countries that shows the relationship between age, hereditary factors, and cancer:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]IARC Sci Publ. 1985;58 :35-42. Heredity, age and cancer.
Author: Voitenko VP.
A factor analysis of mortality from gastric cancer in the populations of 41 countries has been made. It is concluded that the interrelation between age and cancer has both a biological and a chronological component. On the one hand, tumour development is linked to the molecular-genetic and systemic-physiological mechanisms of ageing. On the other, increasing mortality from cancer with age reflects the number of years for which the organism was exposed to the carcinogenic action. Each of these mechanisms is illustrated by the factor model of mortality from gastric cancer. Hereditary effects on both mechanisms that relate age and cancer are discussed.
by MonteQuest » Wed 06 Sep 2006, 20:29:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')Montequest: the ethical solution to the problem you pose is not to let people die, but to educate and help those nations where birth rates are out of control. I grew up in Peru where 60% of the people live below the poverty line. Yet, each family has an average of 4 kids or so. The main reason was not that people wanted to have all those kids, but that they did not know about basic birth control methods! The same applies to eg, Africa, where both ignorance and high birth rates coexist. You can let millions die, but if 4 million are born for every million that dies, what's the point?
Birth control takes 50 to 70 years to have an effect due to demographics. It also does nothing to address the current population overshoot.
If we don't increase the death rate over the birth rate, then overshoot and a dieback or dieoff will do it for us.
We have to address both ends of the spectrum.
Unethical?
Is it better to let even more people die, healthy and unhealthy alike because you find it abhorrent to be responsible about excessive population numbers that threaten everyone?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'Y')ou want freedom from disease and suffering? You want the freedom to save as many human lives as possible? You want the freedom to preserve your moral ideals and embracement of the sanctity of life? Fine, then you are going to have to give up the freedom to breed without restraint. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by rogerhb » Wed 06 Sep 2006, 20:39:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', 'I')'d like everyone to live forever.
Well that's really a problem. Because this world is finite in size and in resources. If you want everyone to live forever then you need a
zero birthrate, and people had better start getting on with each other.
Every year up to three score and ten is a bonus, every year after is greed.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
-
rogerhb
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Smalltown New Zealand
-
by TheTurtle » Wed 15 Nov 2006, 09:04:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cynthia', 'M')ost of all Laugh
And poop, everyday at least once. Well these two can be combined.
LOL! This made me laugh ...
... oh, crap!
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
by NEOPO » Wed 15 Nov 2006, 11:54:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cynthia', 'O')nce I saw the title of the film I shut it down.
When I heard you say this I went on to the next comment
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
-
NEOPO
- Permanently Banned
-
- Posts: 3588
- Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: THE MATRIX
-
