/townhall/ - Townhall

>>9552
My science society regards ethics as the responsibility of individuals.  If other societies need professionals to specially mind ethics, I guess that's their choice, I have little to say.  I would guess the professionals are bad because they are not paid enough.

>>9554
>>9554
>I would guess the professionals are bad because they are not paid enough.
I disagree.  I think they are bad because they do not use proper cost-benefit analysis.  They focus too much on the potential negatives and discount the potential benefits.  This is the kind of idiotic thinking that leads to bad outcomes (such as refusing to let prisoners participate in randomized controlled trials for the COVID-19 vaccines because it is somehow """unethical""" to perform medical experiments on prisoners even if the prisoners explicitly opt in and give informed consent).

>>9557
When you say professional, my mind goes to the salary that is the most important thing about professionalism.  I then associate ranking or goodness with money.

>potential negatives and discount the potential benefits

Most are risk adverse, and going back to professionalism probably the more a bio-ethicist regulates, the more important they are and the more they might get paid (provided they don't go so far as to collapse the field).  Their reward for benefits is probably not very direct.  But these are just guesses, I know no professional bio-ethicists who have chosen to identity to me, anyway.

>refusing to let prisoners participate
I did not know that.  Many seem to want some prisoners to be forced into tests, but others will think about the Nazi government's use of prisoners and try to get distance from the policy.

Is the problem that prisoners are subjugated in some way that makes them incapable of consent?  Something like how children and mentally ill can not necessarily consent?

>>9558
>others will think about the Nazi government's use of prisoners
Yes, it is an over-reaction to this.  Like if a driver swerves too hard to avoid hitting a deer and loses control of the car and crashes.

>Something like how children and mentally ill can not necessarily consent?
And yet, children and the mentally ill are often subjected to medical treatment without regard to whether they consent.  Really gets the noggin' joggin'...

>>9559
>without regard to whether they consent
My understanding is they can't consent, but a combination of guardian consent, child assent, and authorities regarding the treatment as safe is enough.  With a prisoner, I assume the state does not consent, so the prisoner's assent is insufficient.