leading
ethicist
31 Mar 2005
http://www.medicalnewstoday.co­m/medicalnews.php?newsid=22028 <<

The idea being that if you benefit from the research, you should take
part.  I think anybody who eats meat should put in some time at the
slaughterhouse. And if you want the death penalty, you'd better put in
your lotto number to push the button on the next condemmed.

The criticism of this argument, however, is the following: People who
don't want to do nasty jobs have long had the perfectly moral option of
paying somebody else to do them. If you don't want to clean septic
tanks or change your own oil or fight dubious badguys in Iraq or
whatever, you pay a specialist to do that job for you. And so also with
executions and prison guarding and so on.  In medical research, we pay
test subjects. This goes into the cost of new pharmaceuticals. Which we
then procede to complain about, just as we complain about the defense
budget, while continuing to elect people who get us into stupid wars.
It's a time-honored tradition, rather like complaining about plumbing
bills. But the ethical implications are not much different.

SBH

Ok, Health. Self-medication.
Obligation? But info is squelched by FDA, Pharm Grants to Universities
control "Research". Is there not a greater obligation to get these
liars out of power?  I'm using DMSO apparently illegally to control  a
debilitating myopathy, maybe "cure" it. Smarten up!!! (My "anger"
relates to release of fibril aminos) but I think a "shitlist" of
University Dons is in order and I have no intention of "backing off".
Del