Which way would you go?

Which way would you go? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

missturbation -> Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 5:31:34 AM)
I'm reading a book at the moment by John Grisham called 'The king of torts'. Its about a lawyer set to defend a young drug addict who has committed a murder. It appears that there is no motive whatsoever for the murder and the reason why has just been revealed to me. Herein lies my question to you guys. Imagine a well known pharmaceutical company has been trying to develop a drug which will cure drug addiction. After 90 days of being on this drug the taker will no longer want to use drugs again. The company who have developed this drug have set up several research clinics in various countries and tested this drug on 100 patients in every one. For the first 60 days a pill has to be taken every day and then it goes to 1 every other day for the rest of the takers life. The results are that 90 out of the 100 patients are cured and do not go back to taking drugs. 2 out of the 100 stop taking the medication and go back to taking drugs. 8 out of the 100 continue to take the drug and stay off drugs, but on around the 100th day a side effect takes place and they will go out and kill someone. There is no way to tell which 8 out of the 100 will go out and kill. If you were on a medical council to decide if the side effects were worth the otherwise excellent results, which way would you vote? Now imagine that the drug above is a cure for cancer. 90 out of 100 people will be cured. 2 out of 100 will not be. 8 out of 100 will be cured but will be affected by the side effect and go out and kill someone. Would the answer you gave above change? And if so why?

colouredin -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 5:41:51 AM)
I think its ironic, having to take drugs to not take drugs, in reality its not actually cured the problem jus created a whole host of new ones, so no I wouldnt commission it. For the cancer thing, no again i dont care how small the percentage.

LadyEllen -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 5:53:59 AM)
In the greater scheme of things, the loss of one life for the cure of 97 others might be an acceptable death rate for a drug to deal with such illnesses. But its the fact that someone else dies rather than the patient, which makes this less acceptable; much less acceptable. Whether or not the medical council approved it, the drug would have to be withdrawn since this would fall under corporate manslaughter resulting in CEOs and others of the drug company being prosecuted and under the new law, probably going to gaol - and no CEO is going to risk that. In such event, the liability for corporate manslaughter could likely also be extended to those on the medical council, so it would have to be the case that as a member of that council I would have to vote against approval, send the drug back for amendment or destruction and rest easy in the knowledge that no one unconnected with the treatment would die. This is a shame for the 97 who might have benefitted, but the right of the potential murder victim to life greatly outweighs the right of the patients to treatment. E

missturbation -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 6:00:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin I think its ironic, having to take drugs to not take drugs, in reality its not actually cured the problem jus created a whole host of new ones, so no I wouldnt commission it. For the cancer thing, no again i dont care how small the percentage. Yes a little ironic.......maybe. However there are drugs to cure us /aid us and drugs that kill us. Quite a big difference i'd say.

missturbation -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 6:02:21 AM)
quote: In the greater scheme of things, the loss of one life for the cure of 97 others might be an acceptable death rate for a drug to deal with such illnesses. I was thinking along these lines too. quote: This is a shame for the 97 who might have benefitted, but the right of the potential murder victim to life greatly outweighs the right of the patients to treatment. But also thinking along these lines too. [:o]

rexrgisformidoni -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 6:19:58 AM)
Depression meds kill a portion of their users. I don't see much difference, a drug can interact oddly depending on body chemistry. I'd approve it, with reservations of course.

missturbation -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 6:21:24 AM)
May i ask what those reservations would be?

rexrgisformidoni -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 6:34:25 AM)
Continual testing of mental state, first sign of trouble, remove them from society.

Dnomyar -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 7:20:30 AM)
miss. I want to know how you are typing this with your hands tied. I would vote no because one of the persons who got killed may be from my family.

missturbation -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 7:27:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar miss. I want to know how you are typing this with your hands tied. I would vote no because one of the persons who got killed may be from my family. What can i say? I'm highly skilled [:D]

NuevaVida -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 8:01:32 AM)
I say go back to the drawing board and refine the drug before offering it to patients. Once they fix the "Gotta kill other people" side effect, then they can look at mass distribution. Until then, no thanks.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 8:09:16 AM)
I would refuse to consider unbelievable "what if" scenarios. or I would develop a ray gun that would detect the 8 who were going to kill and lock them up. You arty types, really. Leave it to 'umble technicians to show the way.

LadyEllen -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 8:36:08 AM)
Crikey - now there's 8 killers? There was only one earlier on - this drug is getting more dangerous by the posting! E

MadAxeman -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 9:40:31 AM)
*I've been on this drug for 99 days now and I feel fine. So, when are we all meeting up?*

seeksfemslave -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 9:43:14 AM)
The only explanation I can offer is that the eight all kill the same person. or since I know for a fact that Misturbation logs on to CM at an hour when she should be getting some beauty sleep she had a late night and was tired when she wrote her ambiguous OP technically as described, there could be any number of killers from 1 to 8. and I am prepared to represent any or all of the 8 innocent citizens. My fees are quite reasonable. I know for a fact that unpleasant racial overtones exist. The claim that drug addiction or any illness is more pronounced among minorities is outrageous.

missturbation -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 10:57:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I would refuse to consider unbelievable "what if" scenarios. or I would develop a ray gun that would detect the 8 who were going to kill and lock them up. You arty types, really. Leave it to 'umble technicians to show the way. Sheesh you are such a ray of sunshine seeks. quote: since I know for a fact that Misturbation logs on to CM at an hour when she should be getting some beauty sleep she had a late night and was tired when she wrote her ambiguous OP Really? I sleep from around 2am to between 12 noon and 2pm. I wasn't tired at all when i wrote this. Actually looking at your blow up friend behind you, she looks tired. Maybe you should direct your sleep pattern control towards her.

softness -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 11:09:11 AM)
SUre I would allow the drug ... I would just make sure that on the 100th day ... all the people taking the drug were in a high security facility ... and in isolation ... (or does the drug continue to give them a desire to kill ... even after that 100th day?)

missturbation -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 11:12:00 AM)
From what i have read its continous.

windchymes -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 3:43:06 PM)
I'm afraid I'd have to vote it down, because it just doesn't seem right to me to guarantee the deaths of 8 innocent people, multipled by the thousands of hundreds of people who would take the drug to cure cancer. That's a lot of innocent people, and at the very least, sets the stage for billions in class-action lawsuits from the families of the murder victims.... What also factors in to my decision (although I'd vote it down anyway) is the fact that they are making strides with cancer treatments and many more are surviving it. And, society is becoming more proactive in early detection and prevention. So, it's not like 90 people are going to die without this drug on the market. I could really stir things up by suggesting that some of those people got cancer from smoking, which was an educated choice......do they deserve a drug to cure it that would guarantee 8 innocent people losing their lives? [;)] (I'm not serious about that, I just threw it out there, I guess, to be ornery....)

OneMoreWaste -> RE: Which way would you go? (10/15/2008 4:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin I think its ironic, having to take drugs to not take drugs, in reality its not actually cured the problem jus created a whole host of new ones, so no I wouldnt commission it. Ah, but there's an important distinction- one drug is manufactured by large corporations, prescribed by a highly-paid professional, counted out into a little bottle by another professional. The other is sold by random guys on the street WHO DON'T PAY TAXES [:o] Honestly, the entire situation is just so implausible that I have no answer.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625