₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
The Nuremberg Code does not state that any experiment can be performed if the patient gives consent.

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

You can't even carry out any experiment you want on a rat that is considered incapable of giving consent, so how the heck can you be limiting ethics to consent?

That is why i raised a philosophical question on how do we determine if rat is willingly to undergo scientific experiment we subject them to. I further clarify that some big wings in political arena(Germany) Are advocating where scientist needs to give details of what the experiment is always about before such trials can be do done while some opposition are claiming if it is done in such way always it will slow down scientific progress.


[

i]The use of animals in research should evolve out of a strong sense of ethical self-examination. Ethical self-examination involves a careful self-analysis of one's own personal and scientific motives. Moreover, it requires a recognition of animal suffering and a satisfactory working through of that suffering in terms of one's ethical values.[/i]
_{John P. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. 1, 1991}

first what gives human the right to test on a defenseless animal, if not egocentric....i wonder what it is ?

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. As egocentric is embedded on us.

The fact is that whether we are curious about how a new drug may work on humans or how we may survive outer space, our collective mentality comes from the curiosity that separates us from most other animals - the need to know how things work. We would kill not just to eat, but dissect animals to get a good idea what's inside them and hence, probably inside us. It's just in our nature to be egocentric.

Humanity is about surviving and is ready to do anything for such.

budaatum:
Do we agree that all clinical research must adhere to certain ethics as stated in the codes provided, and that no clinical research can legally be performed without considering the ethics involved?

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.

budaatum:
There are many ethical codes that clinical trials must very strictly adhere to. A short list would include the Nuremberg Code (1947), Declaration of Helsinki (2000), Belmont Report (1979), CIOMS (2002) and U.S. Common Rule (1991).
_{Source from the IH Clinical Center}

Good, go thru those code and you will still see it validate Nuremberg code of 1, 2 And 4.

In addition, the idea of informed consent has been universally accepted and now constitutes Article 7 of the United Nations' ""International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also served as the basis for International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects proposed by the World Health Organization""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ethical_Guidelines_for_Biomedical_Research_Involving_Human_Subjects

budaatum:
The experiment must be ethically acceptable and the experimenter must follow ethical procedures otherwise ethics are broken.

You can't just perform any experiment you want even if the person performed on knows the risks and benefits involved and wants you to.

clinical trials bro..

budaatum:
No, not any! What you describe there is what caused the Nuremberg Code to be created, and to stop the above!

Since then, scientific experiment must be ethically accepted and ethically administered, so hardly "any condition of scientific experiment", even if the "victim in question" agrees.

There are no ethics broken if the participant was fully aware of the risks and benefits involved. As the same to any surgery case on a pregnant woman or any emergency that a patient can experience, what is the most important is signing the informed consent paper before every operation. This includes every study, as well. This is what Nuremberg code emphasis

I believe that ethical experiences can go both way too perhaps. When a study is being performed and digging into subjective data to collect credible information to use in evidence based research, one has to reflect if that information is being created, purposely developed, or consciously manifested to actually throw off the results? Is it falsified or valid? Only the subject or participant could know.

Although, What I see that maybe consider unfair or unethical,it is the participant case who surely can have great fun while doing this and change the roles where participant becomes researcher and researcher become the actual participants, even without their knowledge the entire time. Awareness has it’s fascinating results and amusing experience(s).which can go both way to either ethical or unethical related experiment.

budaatum:
]think I too must have this "half bake exposure to logic". I too don't know "that all human are test subject"!

"Subjects" of, or to, whom, if you don't mind me asking?

I do not mean to be rude Buda, but the moniker deserve the harsh word. Subject to scientific experimentation.

color=#770077]The 10 points constituted the "Nuremberg Code," which includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants. It is thought to have been mainly based on the Hippocratic Oath, which was interpreted as endorsing the experimental approach to medicine while protecting the patient.[/color]

That sounds like the very opposite of "human are test subject", to me!

Not really Buda, when you read the first two and the number four code. It state that "" Required is the voluntary, well-informed, understanding consent of the human subject in a full legal capacity.""

""The experiment should aim at positive results for society that cannot be procured in some other way.""

""The experiment should be set up in a way that avoids unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injuries, except, in experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects..

The first two and the four code clearly state that human can be subject into any condition of scientific experiment if the victim in question Cleary agree with it.
Emphasis on the bolded.. But it beg another philosophical question, do rat or mouse use mostly in scientific experiment willingly submit to this . It is ethical as well to use our nearest cousin as experiment when it's against their wish..do science really needs to consider this phenomenon.

You see that is why today some big wings in political arena ( especially in Germany) require scientists to document and justify why an experiment is necessary even if it will be carry out on rat. They also have the right to live. Science is less concerned about this but the actual result which is the knowledge.

Well, i Know harming humans in an experiment or doing something that is likely to harm them, is obviously perceived to be unethical by most people, i also go further by saying harming animal too like rat is also unethical .but with this idea , science progress will definitely slow down and many deases that should be eliminated will triumph. But i say when the subjects are aware, the situation is much more difference, so again the question raised ealier, how are will going to make other animal aware?

For example as you stated earlier , Medical experiments on Jews by Nazis? Obviously not ethical.

Drug experiments on desperate cancer patients with a new experimental drug, with unknown side effects, Arguably ethical.

Waiting to read more view on this subject

JeromeBlack:
I've always seen you and butterflyl1on as people with psychopathic tendencies.

With this your logic, we should be using babies as test subjects.

No morality, no sense

Personal incredulity fallacy spotted. ""Your half bake exposure to logic do not let you know that all human are test subject. Google The Nuremberg Code . It is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation set as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War"".

budaatum:
"Objectively well" ? I think you are subjectively baiting me, as both words have no meaning here.

What USA is doing is exactly what science that is not tempered by ethics would do. USA is simply taking advantage of it's superior global position, and yes, "Iran, Russia and China" are a few of the nations standing up to them. Scientists, in a world that places 'life' above the acquisition of knowledge, would do exactly the same.

what make them superior in the global world? Yes we could begin the argument, you will begin to post me the constraint or factor that are objectively acceptable to consider in placing them in such position. I choose my words carefully bro.


What USA is doing is purely science and had no consideration of ethics . USA first above anyone. USA is strengthen her economic position in the world by weaken less scientific incline country.

Building of sophisticated weapon to be sold to Saudi Arabia in fighting Syria is unethical but it financially rewarding.

budaatum:
No, they will not learn unless those whom they use it against, and the rest of the world, hold them to account. But currently, the benefit derived from associating with USA, stops us from criticising them. If Syria did what they did, we'd behave differently!

USA is using their brand of recognition objectively well. Some country are waking up to challenge this and it is sending a signal of worries to them. Iran, Russia and China are typical example.

WHEN the brand become faded , we shall look at other option. And it is fading now.

budaatum:
Not to the detriment of ethics, vaxx. Science in Germany during the second world war is a great lesson on this particular point.

_{Sorry for low-blowing.}

I think USA should then learn from this by apologizing to Iraq and Afghanistan when military operation was carry out on them....do you know USA use tactical weapons on Iraq and Afghanistan ? .

budaatum:
Were "aquatic or reptiles" the scientists performing the experiments?

But ok, What if the purpose of the knowledge is done for the benefit of black people, or homosexuals, or atheists, or blue haired people? Do you see the point here?

scientific purpose can be done for any purpose at all. Yes homosapiens carry out scientific experiment, yet to see if other mammal do it as well.


Whatever the reason that activate the purpose of the experiment, it still does not invalidate that new knowledge can not be gain in it for whomever that will be available for. Even Michael faraday that inveted electricity do not live to enjoy it.

budaatum:
I think you are wrong here, or I could claim my scientific experiment of enslaving some other race is very good for the betterment of my race because it is my race's aim to develop!

You might be tempted to claim "my scientific experiment of enslaving some other race" , is not scientific. But don't bother. According to my own morality and ethics, I say it is!

you see just like how USA consider building and housing nuclear waepon important for them and unethical for Iran to do so. You see how absurd is that?

budaatum:
What is the point of knowledge if there are no humans to benefit from that knowledge?

what do you mean by human? You mean homo sapiens? What if the purpose of the knowledge is done for the benefit of aquatic or reptiles? Even our natural habitat

budaatum:
Meanwhile, "People are dying because this rabies strain acts fast and is quite fatal, the dogs are many and quite fierce so it was hard to fight them off."

I guess when all the humans are dead, something can delight in the fact that "a new discovery unlock a new key to establishment of something much more beneficial" occurred. It just won't be humans, or the scientist though, since they might be dead too.

in every scientific experiment, there is always tendency of negative implications at least what society will consider as such. But the negative implication is not absurd to science as it unluck a new doors to a new knowledge, yes to community at large it might be dangerous but to scientists, it is a new knowledge.


Emphasis on the knowledge, the main bone of scientific experiment.

LordReed:
Yeah but why destroy the lives you want to save? There can be alternatives you know.

Every outcome of an experiment is a knowledge . Destroying the life's in this sense may be consider part of the experiment.therefore is is not a waste.science is about seeking to advance knowledge.

LordReed:
I was listening to Steve Carroll today and learnt something that I agree with. Human morality and ethics are not inherent but emergent, that is, it is a fruit of our evolution both biologically and socially. Meaning both nature and nurture has formed our morality and our ethics, we give value to the consciousness and feelings of our fellow human being. If you value the consciousness of your fellows why would you want to inflict upon him processes that will completely ignore or devalue that value you place on his consciousness?

morality is inherent but does not stop it from evolving. It modify when society decide to evolve along.and when it does, human by nature adjust because it is natural to do so.

As I already expressed, likely alternatives are being developed that will bypass some of these ethical questions entirely. It is something that great pleases me because I can see science take another gigantic leap if it works out. May be immortality drugs will be developed? I keep my fingers crossed.

I suppose there's a sense in which it's trivially true, but only in a sense so hypothetical as to be meaningless. Scientists are human beings; human beings have ethics (or at least, a predisposition onto which particular ethical codes are laid). These are as much a part of being human as the curiosity which is the root of science.

Consider it this way: why do scientists want to do medical research? Because they want to help people. To magically remove their sense of ethics without removing their desire to help is nonsensical.

There are a few rare cases where the desires to know and to help conflict with what many other see as ethical. These are badly exaggerated and not nearly fundamental. As exceptions there's no real meaningful way to discuss them. Ethics is always going to be a murky process, but you won't extract it from human beings in the scientific community.

When we have robots capable of scientific thought, we might have a situation where it will design experiments no human being would permit. But when we've reached that point, I suspect we'll have no difficulty finding alternatives to those experiments that are both good enough for the work and ethical enough to satisfy the humans, because we'll have much better models of the things we want to experiment on than we have now.


Well, I await the alternative that could remove ethics from sciencetific experiment.

LordReed:
That is an unethical and immoral scientist that will allow disease and vector to run unchecked in a human population just to see what happens.

therefore morality and ethics can stop science progress which is very bad to the betterment of every society aiming to developed.....

LordReed:
Yes they are but that may not be such a bad thing. In the case of human test subjects, it would be very hard to treat human beings like the contents of a test tube given that humans are conscious, feeling beings. Most scientific studies would need to be conducted without recourse to emotion, a very hard thing to control for with live human test subjects.

No I think, deciding that ethical issue should not even be consider is also an ethical decision. In orther words, there are no human endeavour that can exist outside the realm of ethics because morality is an instrict quality of being human.

A lot of the ethics issues may be solved if lab cultured human tissue and organs (and possibly entire bodily systems) are viable alternatives.

Ethics is all about making decision on what is wrong or right.for the scientist,ethical and moral consideration should be extremely important . If they were never consider in the process of doing science. science could well decide to cheat , fake an experiment result or outcome.And this will be a stopping block to the progress of science.


Am against it on this thread while am supporting it on your thread....lol let's see how it will work.....

LordReed:
What is pragmatic about withholding the cure and stopping the disease vector from being destroyed?

what if holding the cure will lead to a new discovery and unlock a new key to establishment of something much more beneficial. Scientists are much more pragmatic in thinking and not what about what society thinks at times.

Top number 1 jobs that pays more than medicine or any other discipline

Become an enterprenurer......build hospital and employ doctors, they will be under your payroll , you will even decide their earnings and many aspect of their life.

Ask Warren buffet?

LordReed:
A very powerful scientist who was so powerful he controlled the city he was in, was creating dog breeds. He had created all sorts of dog breeds. Some for intelligence, some for speed, some for hardiness and some a combination "super" breed. One day, one of the super breed dogs somehow got infected by a deadly strain of rabies and started infecting the other ordinary breed dogs. It managed to infect a third of the population of dogs before escaping out of the facility with the other infected dogs because it was kinda super smart for a dog.

Now out in the city, these dogs start to bite people and infect them with rabies. People are dying because this rabies strain acts fast and is quite fatal, the dogs are many and quite fierce so it was hard to fight them off. Now the scientist has a cure but says the time wasn't right for the cure to be released and because he was powerful and controlled the city, he says the dogs shouldn't be killed.

Do you think the scientist is being fair? If you were the scientist, would you behave in the same way?

what if the scientist is being pragmatic and he is following pragmatic approach....

I just create a topic similar to this...

I have a debate on this topic with my girlfriend. She raised some impressive counter response to support it. But not quite satisfy . What do you think? Pls I need some thought provoking point......either against or in support of it.

Let's begin........

budaatum:
First time out of Nigeria?

Not really, I have been to several west African state. My mum is a Ghanian ,yes Germania is my first country outside Africa.

budaatum:
Sure is. How long you been there?

getting to 32 months.....schooling things bro...

TheLogicalMind:
Just like somebody's parents were on the loose when they forgot to use contraception...

lol.....am too wise to engage a lunatic. But I have correct your foolishness to the audience who may be reading this baseless and uneducated thread.

It is meaningless and serve no useful purpose.

""Thefoolishmind""

TheLogicalMind:
You can try to change your genetics, but it won't work. Your stupidity is hard wired into your peanut sized MOOSLIME brain pal.

""Thefoolishmind"" on the loose. ...

TheLogicalMind:
The only thing you destroyed was your credibility as a thinking man. If the point of this thread is lost on you, then blame your own lack of intelligence.

now ...change your moniker from logical mind to foolish mind.

TheLogicalMind:
Don't give yourself hypertension bro. The research was conducted by both Christian and muslim statisticians. If you have a problem take it up with them and stop making a fool of yourself. Even your seniors in PISSLAM know what's up.

i just destroy your baseless comparism .if only you can read and grasp.

budaatum:
Germany! Never would have thought you were! Guess you're colder than London. Autumn started, but we still warm.

What city are you in?

am in Erding .yeah Germany is way more cold

TheLogicalMind:
According to a study done by the nonpartisan wealth research firm New World Wealth, Christians hold the largest amount of global wealth (55% of the total world wealth), followed by Muslims (5.8%), Hindus (3.3%) and Jews (1.1%). According to the same study it was found that adherents under the classification Irreligion or other religions hold about 34.8% of the total global wealth.

The study found that 56.2% out of the 13.1 million persons listed as "Dollar Millionaires" in the World are Christians while 6.5% were Muslims, 3.9% were Hindu, and 1.7% were Jewish; 31.7% were identified as adherents of "other" religions or "not religious".

https://scontent.flos8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/40796568_452628488575010_4263201000619245568_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=d16f6e88ea5c0b86931a7bbae76df8aa&oe=5C24987E

At the extreme end of the spectrum, the study found that Muslims make up the majority of the world's poor people with the Dubai based Arabic language media outfit Al Arabiya reporting that over 1 billion out of the 1.4 billion muslims in the world living below the poverty line.

https://scontent.flos8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/40647522_452630288574830_7321375881836888064_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=76aba811385782a926b7d5d4b96edc9d&oe=5C2A20D7

The study aims to gather information which will enable aid agencies to determine areas of priority in for wealthy countries seeking to render financial assistance in the form of loans to less privileged ones.




https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Muslims-are-the-richest-religious-group-in-the-world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2016/04/19/Why-are-Muslim-countries-poor-.html#

crap.....masjid al haram is the most expensive single building in the world . Check to confirm...it is over 100 billion dollar and it is regarded as the first important mosque according to the Muslim.


Even if I am going to go by your baseless comparism which has no solid foundation.

Which religion is the wealthiest?

You will have to specify if it is clergy/church organizations, the believers, or both combined? And where do your baseless article draw the lines within big religious groups, example christians (catholics, orthodox, protestants, and all the protestant sects), muslims (sunni, shia, and some small sects), etc.

I would be amazed if any church was richer than the catholics, with the vatican’s art collection and real estate all over the world.

And if you attribute oil wealth in the Middle East, Indonesia, dubaii, saudi arabia and Brunei to muslims, the total is pretty substantial if not on a per capita basis. And don’t forget the Muslim sultanate council of Nigeria arguably the richest royal family in Nigeria .

If you count the Chinese as atheists (nearly all are), and add in western European and American atheists, that’s plenty of dough, too.


So your article is completely useless and baseless as it serve no useful purpose.

frank317:
Na Deutschland you de dey do juju... Hope u have a shrine there

Lol......