The drug, called ZMapp, is one of several under development to fight Ebola. Allowing any of them to be given to patients without proper vetting would be problematic, said Arthur Caplan, director of the medical ethics division at New York University Langone Medical Center. You mean like, more problematic than bleeding to death out of your asshole? Lets talk about the imaginary line between ethics and profits for just a moment here. If you have an epidemic of global proportions, and you have medicine that might be able to save thousands of lives, and patients with a 45-90% chance of dying, can you really stand on the ethics soapbox as the rationale for not giving it to them? I mean they are dead already, especially in areas where healthcare is administered from a tent in the middle of nowhere. So are we talking about ethics, or are we talking about profit margin here?
Posted on: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:15:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015