Is it ever okay to experiment on people if they know the risks and the risks are low?

I watched a movie the other day called Extreme Measures.  *movie spoiler alert*  A famous doctor was taking homeless people and performing experiments on them to find a procedure to allow parapalegics to walk again.  The ethical delimna was whether he should sacrifice these few homeless people in order to help thousands of people who are unable to walk.

It made me think about the issue.  Science sacrifices animals all the time to determine if a medicine or medical procedure is safe and can then be used on humans.  The animals cannot be asked if they wish to be part of the experiments.  But humans can.  The doctor in the movie was obviously wrong in using people without their knowledge.  In the movie, he states that he is rather old and doesn't have time to wait years for experiments on rats and monkeys.

Is it ever okay to experiment on people when the odds of survival are slim to none?

Obviously, taking people, homeless or not, is unethical.  But what if you asked for volunteers?  If you spelled everything out to people and showed them the risks and benefits, to them and humanity, would that be okay?  I am of the mind that if people are in control of their mental faculties, they can make any decision they wish.  If someone asks for volunteers and someone steps forward, they can all sign the appropriate paperwork (and maybe be overseen by a 'oversight committee') then the doctor and volunteer can proceed.  I can imagine there would be a few people who would want to do this.  There are always a few individuals who will volunteer for anything.  But would they get the right kind of people?  Would they get volunteers who fit the criteria they needed?

But what if they can't get enough volunteers?  Maybe the odds of success are too low.  Would it be okay to pay for volunteers?  If people were offered a substantial amount of money, would it be appropriate?  I can certainly see more volunteers stepping forward.  Money can be a strong motivator.  And even if the odds of success are low, the money could be given to their family.  If the volunteer was of sound mind, would this be okay?

I am of the opinion, that if someone is capable of making decisions for themselves, then they can volunteer for any and all procedures that are offered.  But money should probably not enter the equation (maybe living expenses?).  It makes the reasons for volunteering more difficult to ascertain.  And I like the idea of an oversight committee.  A group of medical professionals (and laypersons?) who make sure that what the scientist/doctor is doing needs volunteers and that the volunteers are not being coerced.

The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one.  As long as that one understands the risks involved.

Smoking? Not on my beach.

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is proposing to ban smoking at New York beaches, parks, outdoor malls, and plazas.  Back in 2002, he has successfully banned smoking in restaurants and bars.

Indoor smoking bans are obvious, everyone is trapped with the smoke.  Outdoor smoking bans are a bit trickier.  The smoke isn't trapped and disappates more quickly.  But according to some studies, the smoke outdoors is still unhealthy for people nearby.

Study: Outdoor smoke gets in your lungs (USA Today)

Yes, while you can move upwind from the smoker or farther away, non-smokers shouldn't have to do so.  If you are enjoying your book at a park bench, having a smoker sit next to you, or even just waking past, is distracting, obnoxious, and unhealthy.  The smoke still travels and is easily enhaled by non-smokers.

I have heard arguments about music can be played too loud and should also be banned.  While I haven't checked all municipalities in the U.S., I know there are 'noise pollution' laws around the country that prevent people from playing their music so loud it disturbs others within certain distances.  And a big difference is that music isn't harmful to your health while smoke is.

Another argument is that barbeques and campfires do the same thing that smoke from a cigarette does.  But I don't recall the last time I was even mildly annoyed with barbeque smoke or campfire smoke from someone else.  If this was prevalent, I could see the same type of ban being put into place.

Lastly, walking around the beach, with cigarettes littering the area is unsightly, annoying, and a health hazard (think babies putting cigarette butts into their mouths) and I am all for a ban at the beach.

Original article:
City Wants a Smoking Ban on Beaches (New York Times)

Update:
When Citizens (Gasp) Are the Smoking Police (New York Times)

Is Luck on your side?

Coincidences happen all of the time.  We walk out of a movie to find a friend who had recommended that same movie to us.  We see an advertisement for vacationing in Florida just as we're discussing where to go for vacation.  Mark Twain was born on the day of the appearance of Halley's Comet in 1835, and died on the day of its next appearance in 1910.

People forget the times when something does NOT happen.  Your family is discussing where to go for vacation and no don't see any ads for places to go.  So if you and your family discuss vacations 10 times and one time a coincidence occurs, you will remember the one time and forget the other nine.

With so many things going on in the world, it would be strange if coincidences did NOT happen.  But we only remember the coincidences and not all of the other times when things did not coincide.

Here is a good article on good things happening to good people, bad things happening to bad people, and all of the more numerous times that people forget.  Thoughts on Luck, Skill, and Coincidences (NewsBlaze)

I'm Stressed! Where's my Chocolate!

A recent study says that people don't reach for 'comfort food' when they are stressed.  Comfort food might be chocolate, or potato chips, or peppermint sticks.  They say people are more likely to try something new during these times of stress.

Comfort eating at times of stress is a myth (Telegraph)

Of course with any 'rule' there are exceptions.  But I know several people who do, indeed, reach for their comfort food when they are stressed or sick including myself.  For example, I do eat chicken soup at times, but when I am sick, I reach for it just about every time.  (Whether chicken soup is actually helpful when you are sick is subject to review.)  When I am stressed, I usually reach for chocolate.  And I know several other people who reach for their 'comfort food' during similar times.

What are your favorite comfort foods?  Make mine chocolate!

The Dunning-Kruger effect. Or, I know more than I do.

I came across this brief article on Boing Boing: Confident Dumb People (BoingBoing.net)

I'm suddenly feeling better about my lack of opinions. :)

More information from ABC radio in Australia. Listen to the broadcast or read the transcript. The Dunning-Kruger effect (The Science Show)