Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    360 points danielmorozoff | 16 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source | bottom
    1. NitpickLawyer ◴[] No.45002721[source]
    There is a great podcast with the entire team + Noland on yt. It is ~ 8h long, but IMO it's worth the time. You get to hear things from the perspective of the chief brain surgeon, hardware team, software team, and of course Noland himself. I really recommend it, to get a better understanding of what's possible, what they had to do to get there, and how impactful this kind of research is for people with terrible conditions.
    replies(3): >>45031352 #>>45032352 #>>45035688 #
    2. zorkso ◴[] No.45031352[source]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbk9BiPhm7o
    3. Veserv ◴[] No.45032352[source]
    Still the same depraved head of neurosurgery, Dr. Matthew MacDougall, who said: "If tomorrow laws were changed and the FDA said okay you can do some of this early experimentation in willing human participants that would be a very interesting option I think there would be a lot of people that would step up." [1]

    That is basically the textbook definition of unethical medical practice, so unquestionably far over the line of acceptable practice that you would have to be willfully ignorant to defend it, and they think it would be exciting if it were not banned.

    [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZGItIAUQmI&t=5239s

    replies(6): >>45032566 #>>45032662 #>>45032718 #>>45033183 #>>45035240 #>>45037056 #
    4. kridsdale3 ◴[] No.45032566[source]
    Who are you to decide what is acceptable? This type of moral system is entirely cultural.
    5. Noumenon72 ◴[] No.45032662[source]
    These kind of takes often place a higher value on people's life than they would place on their own. We should let people choose MAID if that's the best outcome for their lives, and we should let them risk their health for science. It's up to them whether they feel they have anything left to lose.

    This is aside from the harm it does to the rest of us to prevent experimentation by willing participants, such as barring human challenge trials to quickly test Covid vaccines.

    replies(1): >>45032730 #
    6. dvt ◴[] No.45032718[source]
    > That is basically the textbook definition of unethical medical practice

    This is an extremely uncharitable interpretation of what was said. First of all, it's really hard to get malpractice here, as consent is implied (unless you'd think he'd purposefully do a bad or sloppy job). You could say it's irresponsible, and that argument holds more water, but when folks are in these terrible situations (i.e. terminally ill, etc.), a strong argument could also be that it's morally impermissible to disallow them to partake in such experimental treatments.

    In any case, it's an interesting moral conundrum, akin to abortion or euthanasia.

    replies(1): >>45034141 #
    7. GuinansEyebrows ◴[] No.45032730{3}[source]
    well, it may be one thing when we're talking about functional adults deciding for themselves to opt-in to experimental treatment.

    i would guess that these protections exist to cover a broader group including children or those who are in the care of others and aren't necessarily capable of making their own decisions about experimental treatment... to say nothing of other forms of coercion otherwise-capable adults may face when it comes to stuff like this.

    it's tricky! and it doesn't seem like there's a one-size-fits-all approach that offers protection for those who need it.

    8. jibal ◴[] No.45033183[source]
    It was a rational speculation about people's behavior, not any sort of medical practice.
    9. michaelmrose ◴[] No.45034141{3}[source]
    Being blind or disabled isn't anything like dying of cancer.

    We allow compassionate testing of therapies that might allow you to live longer because the alternative is an ugly death.

    Consent is never ever ever implied and you don't have to deliberately do a poor job to be liable.

    Just not having good evidence of the therapy is liable to improve their lot and doing it anyway or failing to impart an accurate picture of the risks because you don't know enough to do so.

    How can you possibly have informed consent without the same info that you hope to glean?

    replies(3): >>45036586 #>>45037127 #>>45039889 #
    10. mchusma ◴[] No.45035240[source]
    I think this comment highlights how bad the state of “medical ethics” is. Barring informed people from getting treatments they want is unethical in my book. Full stop. The entire apparatus is built on shoddy backwards ethics.
    11. maxlin ◴[] No.45035688[source]
    I love and hate this type of Lex Friedman interviews. Several factors give out when there's a podcast that is posted uncut with a 8 hour length that I'd like to listen to. Wish he cut them!
    replies(1): >>45035721 #
    12. alanbernstein ◴[] No.45035721[source]
    I completely relate - but I listened to this one, alone, in full. Technology has produced many things you might call a miracle, but this one stands out.
    13. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45036586{4}[source]
    > Being blind or disabled isn't anything like dying of cancer

    I think it’s presumptuous to conclude from afar where someone’s affliction lies on a scale of suffering.

    People should be free to do with their bodies what they choose. To describe and act on their subjective experience of themselves as they see fit, not as a third party deems they ought to.

    14. vasco ◴[] No.45037056[source]
    If it were up to you I bet we couldn't ride motorcycles or jump out of airplanes either.
    15. Xorakios ◴[] No.45037127{4}[source]
    But how you glean info without volunteers consenting to take a risk in hope of improving their lot?
    16. try_the_bass ◴[] No.45039889{4}[source]
    > We allow compassionate testing of therapies that might allow you to live longer because the alternative is an ugly death.

    Calling many of these therapies "compassionate" is a bit of a stretch after you learn about their side effects...