LordReed:
Oya come and force me to list it. LoLz.
I declare it unnecessary, go and bring police. LMAO.

LordReed:
It seems English is hard for you today.
Dude I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OBJECTIVE MORALITY.
Is that clear enough for you?
You need Igbo or Yoruba translation?

MuttleyLaff:


Seems someone is temporarily suffering from amnesia
Please do a complete re-reading of all your posts done today
You've forgotten about telling me this:
"I take it you do not believe in an objective morality"

You tried to embroil me in to fairky objective morality
but without giving it much of a sniff, I threw it, immediately back in your face

Now if you're claiming you dont believe in fairky objective morality, why for fairk's sake then, did you bring fairky objective morality up?
You even went further, to give me an example plus explanation of it.

Water don pass garri be dat, when people yield to the strong need to resort to posting with snide remarks

vaxx:
what are this moral principle? You will begin to see the loopholes yourself.

budaatum:

Social and clinical value
Scientific validity
Fair subject selection
Favorable risk-benefit ratio
Independent review
Informed consent
Respect for potential and enrolled subjects

vaxx:
what is the essence of ethics that regard consent even when experimentental procedure is way risky? That is even the reasons the standard are not yet implemented or allowed in any country. Well it is still regarded as one of the most brillant idea ever created in medical research.

It is still a big debate anyway. .

budaatum:



It's not about whether there are loopholes in them or not, but whether they exist, are applied and adhered to, which they are, and where or when they are not, they should, are, and would be, enforced.

budaatum:

First you claim they don't exist, now you've shifted to "they are not implemented", which is just not true! It's a criminal offence to perform unethical procedures and experiments on common rats, not to talk of on human beings!

The debate goes on because new unthought of procedures are constantly being considered.

vaxx:
Not only does it state that, it also emphasis on the consent! Code 1 of Nuremberg is an evidence.

LordReed:
LoL, English is really hard for you today.
So because I asked you a question it makes it that I hold it as true?
I think the airhead allusion is appropriate to you.

budaatum:

I don't know where you get your "emphasis" from! Consent is after all only one of many principles, and nowhere is it said that one can perform any experiment on living things just because they give consent!

Just think. Say a person wants to perform an experiment about the chewiness and flavour of cooked human flesh. Can the consent of the individual experimented on make the experiment ethical?

MuttleyLaff:
All you've been doing from #36 is running after shadows
Hopping from Machiavelli to fairky objective morality, then to and fro one poxy snide remark and the other or obsession with a fictional wall

Why didnt you leave a disclaimer saying you do not hold it as true?
Why were you trying to get me involved with fairky objective morality?

Idle hands are the devil's workshop, that's how the devil always finds some mischief for idle hands to do.

You're a recently certified mischief maker,
thats why lately you've been opening up Religion thread topics upandan the place that has no substance, head and/or tail

MuttleyLaff:
All you've been doing from #36 is running after shadows
Hopping from Machiavelli to fairky objective morality, then to and fro one poxy snide remark and the other or obsession with a fictional wall

Why didnt you leave a disclaimer saying you do not hold it as true?
Why were you trying to get me involved with fairky objective morality?

Idle hands are the devil's workshop, that's how the devil always finds some mischief for idle hands to do.

You're a recently certified mischief maker,
thats why lately you've been opening up Religion thread topics upandan the place that has no substance, head and/or tail

vaxx:
it is written bodly in Nuremberg code.....and at the same time WHO attested to it. Consent is the most important agreement before carry out scientific experimentation on human.

vaxx:
i like the way you pushed the question back to him....

LordReed:
LoL! Don't take it so hard, English can be difficult to understand sometimes. LMFAO!

MuttleyLaff:


[img]https://s1/images/MuttleysGato.gif[/img]
We all have demon(s)
but I choose not to feed mine.
My sympathy for you.
Hahahaha haaa.

vaxx:

have you ever wonder how postmoterm is carry out....do the dead body required pre-informed notice or from the relatives?

vaxx:
my argument is ethics or no ethics, so far the patient consent is attested, the experiment can be carry out. And Nuremberg code of 1, 2 And 4 confirm it which can be found in other code.

vaxx:
And ehnnn buda"" ethics as a whole is not a democracy and treating it as such is absurd.

budaatum:
It doesn't mean that because you have consent you can go ahead and perform unethical procedures!
If the procedure itself is considered unethical, you can't perform it legally even with consent of the person being experimented on.
Current issues related to this is the argument we're having over here about canabinoids.
No doctor can currently prescribe it even if they want to except illegally, or the law is changed
or you're given special dispensation by the home secretary.
(MuttleyLaff informs me this is changing soon).
Another is abortions over a certain gestation period after which you can't get a normal abortion, consent or not.

Then there's the ongoing stem cell controversy where ethics is of immense consideration.
Different countries even have Stem Cell Laws stating whether they can be used and to which extent.
Stem cell research using the human embryo is permitted in Sweden, Spain, Finland, Belgium, Greece, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands;
however, it is illegal in Germany, Austria, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal.
And where it is not permitted, consent is a rather mute point!

I just don't see the reason why you insist that consent is a waiver for ethics in experimental procedures, vaxx.
That's what you seem to be saying. If so, you are very wrong!

budaatum:
I have not claimed there is anything democratic about ethics! India, today, decriminalised homosexuality but I bet if they had to vote on it, it would still be a crime!

budaatum:

It doesn't mean that because you have consent you can go ahead and perform unethical procedures! If the procedure itself is considered unethical, you can't perform it legally even with consent of the person being experimented on.

Current issues related to this is the argument we're having over here about canabinoids. No doctor can currently prescribe it even if they want to except illegally, or the law is changed or you're given special dispensation by the home secretary. (MuttleyLaff informs me this is changing soon).

Another is abortions over a certain gestation period after which you can't get a normal abortion,

I just don't see the reason why you insist that consent is a waiver for ethics in experimental procedures, vaxx. That's what you seem to be saying. If so, you are very wrong.

vaxx:

Well the same way we have no qualms eating other species of birds and animals, it clearly shows we really don't regard killing them as an issue of ethics.

vaxx:
The possible outcomes should be knowable and known and the human must understand the possible outcomes for it to be ethical, meaning concernt determine if it is ethical or not .

budaatum:

I hardly see how this is related! In a homicidal death, post-mortems are usually carried out as a legal requirement, consent or not. In deaths where there is no suspicion as to the cause of death, there might not be. It is pretty straight forward.

budaatum:

You keep repeating this as if by so doing it becomes true!

Consent is not the only code that needs to be satisfied before experiments can proceed. There are others, and which carry equal, if not more, weight that come into question too. And why you fail to see this completely alludes me.

vaxx:
consent is the most important factor iota ethics.......without it, it will be illegal to carry out scientific experiment on human. YET TO SEE ANY ETHICAL RULES THAT OUTWEIGHT THIS. IF ANY PROVIDE IT.

budaatum:

Vaxx, are you saying that with the consent of those experimented on, it is not illegal to perform Stem cell research using the human embryo for example in Germany?

budaatum:

Even where the procedure itself has not been deemed ethical in the relevant society?

vaxx, are you saying that with the consent of those experimented on, it is not illegal to perform Stem cell research using the human embryo for example in Germany?

budaatum:

But we still have ethics surrounding how we may treat them while alive, and how we are permitted to kill them! People go to jail for the unethical slaughter of animals intended for consumption! Or don't they have such laws where you are?

I'm beginning to think you are misusing the word "ethics". I did give a definition when asked!

Ethics are moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

There clearly are moral principles that govern the conduct of clinical experiments, and there are moral principles that apply to the conduct of slaughtering animals for consumption. Those moral principles are what are commonly referred to as the "ethics" of the field that they apply to. Where I live, if you are caught circumventing moral principles of slaughter houses, or clinical experiments, you would have committed a crime and could go to jail. And claiming you had consent would not absolve you of the crime.

vaxx:

this is political argument and not scientific decision. NOT GOING TO SHIFT POST.

vaxx:
I just ask a simple question , what are this moral principle? And you are given me a democratic answer....

budaatum:

Social and clinical value
Scientific validity
Fair subject selection
Favorable risk-benefit ratio
Independent review
Informed consent
Respect for potential and enrolled subjects

budaatum:

I am not giving you any democratic answer. What I gave is repeated below!



And here's a link to the moral principles relating to slaughterhouses in UK

Nothing democratic at all, please!

budaatum:

But we still have ethics surrounding how we may treat them while alive, and how we are permitted to kill them! People go to jail for the unethical slaughter of animals intended for consumption! Or don't they have such laws where you are?

I'm beginning to think you are misusing the word "ethics". I did give a definition when asked!

Ethics are moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

There clearly are moral principles that govern the conduct of clinical experiments, and there are moral principles that apply to the conduct of slaughtering animals for consumption. Those moral principles are what are commonly referred to as the "ethics" of the field that they apply to. Where I live, if you are caught circumventing moral principles of slaughter houses, or clinical experiments, you would have committed a crime and could go to jail. And claiming you had consent would not absolve you of the crime.

budaatum:

It is not a political argument at all, but a societal one. The society as a whole decides its ethics, and not just the people directly involved! Animals killed in slaughterhouses after all, have never campaigned for their humane treatment and killing, yet society has imposed ethics on how these procedures may legally be done!

I don't post shift, vaxx. You seem to want to discuss ethics as it relates to experiments on living things as if only one perspective, that of the direct participants or the scientist alone should be considered, when in reality, it involves the whole society where the ethics actually prevail.

No one can claim consent allows them to perform any experiment whatsoever if said experiment is outlawed. The outlawing itself is an ethics issue.

I hope we are clear on that.