Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndyMcConachie | Hacker News Reader

They're doing it because they can. The FDA wouldn't allow it in the USA, so they're infecting people for science in a place where there are fewer protections afforded the citizenry.

From an academic standpoint this is ethically questionable. From a purely moral standpoint this is disgusting.

View on HN

Why is giving the vaccine (some form of herpes) to those who are already infected with herpes morally disgusting?

If many MDs, via the IRB, say that this is a bad idea, but one MD says that it is a good idea and that MD then decides to go overseas to conduct the research, what do you think was actually going on? This is crazy stuff they are doing and many MDs think they should not be doing it at all. The incentives to skew the data they generate are super high and super suspect now.

What if it cures the sick without causing problems during the tests. Would that still be disgusting?

"What if the ends justify the means?" I guess we can keep doing it!

If I play Russian Roulette and don't get shot, does that mean the people who told me it was dangerous were wrong?

Do you have the final say on what goes into your body or do you not?

It is only morally disgusting if the study participants are purposefully _misled_ or _forced_ to submit to the study. This is absolutely NOT the case here.

You do, however, the MDs do not. And if they are not using MDs, that is insane too. That they are injecting something without IRB approval is nuts as is, that any licensed MD in the US would do so is doubly crazy and I would like to never be practiced on by them. The medical field is a different beast than, say, putting on an aftermarket car-horn or putting super instead of unleaded into the gas tank. The vast majority of people, including nurses and other MDs, have no idea how a specific medicine works or the complexities therein. Docs are required to help them, not to hurt them, we've thought so for thousands of years. Yes, many may say that they are helping the people, but the large majority of other MDs, via the IRB, say that they are hurting them. I'm gonna go with the IRBs here and say this is crazy stuff and sets a very dangerous precedent.

Why wouldn't the FDA allow it? I didn't see anything about that in the article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com