|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jun 17, 2009 12:40:17 GMT
You are on a police raid as an expert investigator and your target is a well known geneticist who has been working on cures for cancer. Your testamony will either free him to continue his work, or jail him and have his work destroyed.
You raid his lab and find his research.
Later while looking through his research, you find that he has completed his research, and has a cure for every type of cancer, but that he did so by experimenting on children that he bought from north korea.
What do you do? and why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 17, 2009 12:45:12 GMT
Take copies of the cures and send them anonymously to every major drugs manufacturer in the world under open copyright.
Then send the bastard to jail to rot.
Real brain strainer, that one! I love it! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jun 17, 2009 16:37:07 GMT
- I'd make him cease any IP rights for the invention to an appropriate foundation;
- then I'd publicize the story so that no one can claim credit for the findings (to include research institutions);
After that - well, the guy'd be stigmatized for life, and the conundrum is on every- and anybody as to whether to benefit from it or not.
But public memory is short and personal survival instinct is big - so the moral issue will fade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 18, 2009 0:13:47 GMT
GIVE the cure away, don't mention the kids
Utilitarianism has my vote on this one.
I kind of assume the children are dead. If they were brought then no one else would find out, it can be hushed up and fine.
Of course if the children are alive then ... well I'm still for Utilitarianism in this case. Imagine if the children ever find out (if they're alive enough) that their sufference has caused to hope of millions.
It's just a few kids imo...
|
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Jun 18, 2009 0:38:29 GMT
Exactly. The question also presumes that punishing others is moral, apparently to the extent that you might choose punishment over eradicating one of the most persistent and complex diseases killing humans.
It's a no-brainer. Publish his work. If you can think up a tricky way to send him to jail while saving his work like EK did, then good for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Jun 18, 2009 10:38:04 GMT
Exitus acta probat, what the man did wasn't right at all, but he did it for the sake of healing cancer.
I would investigate how the children are if they are still alive, how much they had to suffer if they did and continue from there. The moment the children are killed or lived in severe pains, I would put him in jail but give him some sort of recognition about his work. There is a post mortum idea, maybe there is also a post prison idea? ;D
Let him write books about his studies and how he used the children, so if he hurted them he would relive it over and over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jun 18, 2009 16:25:43 GMT
They're North Korean children so they'd probably have died of starvation anyway  ducks the upcoming smacks |
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Jun 18, 2009 20:46:42 GMT
ducks the upcoming smacks ;D |
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jun 18, 2009 21:29:13 GMT
ducks the upcoming smacks ;D I could go for some duck a l'orange  |
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Jun 19, 2009 0:03:41 GMT
Make copies of his work, hide a couple in secure places and have the results published; track back the children and have the guy publicly prosecuted in an international court for what he did to the children. Whatever the outcome of the trial, that would raise public awareness and might force to set in place more strict ethic procedures for medical research; without counting that it would also 'force' to investigate that human trade organization. If the children are still alive, having them get the best care possible and be adopted by suitable families.
That researcher would have been a little stupid to go that way though... He could probably easily have consenting patients to make the tests on legally (and ethically).
|
|
|
|
Post by Hand-E-Food on Jun 19, 2009 3:01:59 GMT
Make copies of his work, hide a couple in secure places and have the results published; But how do you publish work like that without showing how you did your testing? |
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Jun 19, 2009 11:23:14 GMT
That researcher would have been a little stupid to go that way though... He could probably easily have consenting patients to make the tests on legally (and ethically).  |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jun 19, 2009 11:50:12 GMT
Ok, I'll make a decision on Monday, but so far everyone seems to be opting to go to gaol by distributing evidence before the trial - can't say I saw that one coming  |
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Jun 20, 2009 20:36:29 GMT
Make copies of his work, hide a couple in secure places and have the results published; But how do you publish work like that without showing how you did your testing? It's even better that it be shown that the doc did the tests on bought kids; I want that to be exposed to the world and the guy to be prosecuted for it anyway. It's past and can't be undone, but it can serve as a base to make a better future. That researcher would have been a little stupid to go that way though... He could probably easily have consenting patients to make the tests on legally (and ethically). That's in part what I meant... It must not have been cheap to "buy" the kids, make them come over, etc... All money that could have been used to indemnify volunteer patients; without counting that some patients dying with cancer (or parents with kids that do, if kids are what's needed) would probably have volunteered for free or even paid for being part of such tests. |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jun 20, 2009 21:56:06 GMT
That ignores the fact that in most regulated, certainly medical, research, the trial on humans is forbidden in the early stages.
Therefore even volunteers may not have been available (legally) - using humans early may well have been a short cut, where the data on record did not permit to assume reasonable safety - or even remote efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jun 22, 2009 9:07:36 GMT
Make copies of his work, hide a couple in secure places and have the results published; track back the children and have the guy publicly prosecuted in an international court for what he did to the children. Whatever the outcome of the trial, that would raise public awareness and might force to set in place more strict ethic procedures for medical research; without counting that it would also 'force' to investigate that human trade organization. If the children are still alive, having them get the best care possible and be adopted by suitable families. That researcher would have been a little stupid to go that way though... He could probably easily have consenting patients to make the tests on legally (and ethically). This is my favorite one - and so gets the accolade of being able to create the next conundrum.
My solution would be to to submit his entire research to the court as evidence of what he's done, then when the case is finished request a copy of the court documents as the research is now a matter of public record and can't be destroyed as it's a legal document - make copies and send it to the govenments of the world to do with as they wish. |
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Jun 22, 2009 14:09:56 GMT
No offence, but how does anyone decide what's the best moral conumdrum? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jun 22, 2009 14:13:40 GMT
it's not the best conumdrum, rather it's the best answer that wins (in the opinion of the creator of the conumdrum) bit like the picture caption thread |
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Jun 23, 2009 4:09:41 GMT
That ignores the fact that in most regulated, certainly medical, research, the trial on humans is forbidden in the early stages. Therefore even volunteers may not have been available (legally) - using humans early may well have been a short cut, where the data on record did not permit to assume reasonable safety - or even remote efficiency. Well, I don't necessarily equate legal to moral. Safety/efficiency in medicine seems something really relative and if someone consciously acknowledging the risks desires to be test subject, there could be conditions where I wouldn't consider such thing completely immoral even if performed illegally... And it would still be better than 'buying' children as guinea pigs. I'll start a new topic. |
|
.com
