A hypothetical situation with an AIDS Cure.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2006-06-14 06:02pm

Here's the question. You're the head of <Fill-in-the-Blank> Country which has an AIDS problem, and a scientist comes to you with a solution. It's an airborne bacteria which guarantees the eradication of AIDS in all people it 'infects,' with no side effects. Well... one side effect. Roughly one out of a thousand people who have AIDs and are exposed to this 'cure' either fall seriously ill for a long time, or die. So do you eradicate something that's destroying your country, and killing people world wide, at the cost of some human lives, or do you hold on and hope for a better cure?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-14 06:11pm

I'd release it, easy. 1/1000 is a lot less than the mortality rate you'll get if you don't release the cure.

Darth Tanner · Post by **Darth Tanner** » 2006-06-14 06:18pm

Assuming it was released world wide, which as an airborne agent it would be, then the initial casualties from that would be roughly 38,600 people, even if they all died this would be miles lower than the current 2,400,000 people (2005 lower limit) dieing from aids a year so unless there was some nasty mutation of the aids killing agent that resulted in some sort of super plague then its an easy decision to make for me.

Release it quickly

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2006-06-14 06:33pm

I would put money into a way to counteract the side effects before releasing it. If one couldn't be found, then we would fund the recovery of those with the effects and give compensation to those affected.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2006-06-14 06:38pm

I don't release it. If it's airborne, we can figure out another delivery mechanism that allows for people to choose if they want to risk dying.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-06-14 08:21pm

Easy decision; release, assuming that (as per the OP) there are no other non-airborne means of spreading this.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2006-06-14 08:32pm

This is seriously the easiest moral dilemma I've seen in a long time. The only use I can see for this scenario is to test certain simplistic ethical systems and their adherents. Since I subscribe primarily to utilitarianism, it's not a problem for me. People who are absolutists about rights and/or divine laws, on the other hand, would have a problem with this scenario.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-06-14 08:38pm

This is kind of a silly question. AIDS is virtually completely fatal eventually. People with AIDS are almost certainly going to die without the cure. If only 1 out of a 1000 people die because of this airborne cure, that is a hell of alot better than 1000 out of a 1000 any way you slice it.

My only concern is the airborne bacterias shelf life. How long will it be effective since AIDS is a mutation happy virus? I'd be worried that the bacteria would still kill the odd person but would no longer be effective against curing AIDS. However, it is still worth it, since it would undoubtably save in the short term alot more people than it would kill in the long term. And it isn't like we can't make further editions of the bacteria.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2006-06-14 08:39pm

I release it instantly. To do otherwise is complete folly.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2006-06-14 08:42pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:This is kind of a silly question. AIDS is virtually completely fatal eventually. People with AIDS are almost certainly going to die without the cure. If only 1 out of a 1000 people die because of this airborne cure, that is a hell of alot better than 1000 out of a 1000 any way you slice it.

Ah, but it would be interesting to pose this question to religious absolutists (for whom laws do not make exceptions), human-rights absolutists, and people who think that passivity can never be wrong. All of these people advocate ethics systems which would instruct you to not release the cure in this situation.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-06-14 09:11pm

This is like saying, "There's a building full of children on fire. Do you spray it with a hose and risk one of them drowning, or do you let them all burn to death?" AIDS is eventually going to mutate so the cocktail doesn't work, and there are millions with no access to those drugs anyway. And that one in a thousand might not die of the bacteria, whereas they definitely will die of AIDS. The only problem I see is the potential for the bacteria to infect people who don't have HIV and sickening or killing 1 in 1000 people worldwide. That's a potential death toll of over 6 million, which changes the equation drastically. But the OP seems to assume the bacteria will only affect those with HIV.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-06-14 09:18pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:Ah, but it would be interesting to pose this question to religious absolutists (for whom laws do not make exceptions), human-rights absolutists, and people who think that passivity can never be wrong. All of these people advocate ethics systems which would instruct you to not release the cure in this situation.

I'd probably suggest that they learn the history of HIV/AIDS. Like how when AZT was thought to be a cure and there were nearly riots when the pharmecutical company that was producing it decided to charge the highest price for any medication til that point for it and then again with the "Triple Cocktail". Or the huge national movements to combat the callousness of Reagan era politics of "Pretend It Isn't a Problem" (or the "It's a Gay Plague From God" point of view from certain people) that continues to this day. Or the people with HIV who have volunteered to be human guinea pigs for HIV/AIDS research. Or the whole countries in Africa that are having mass die-offs from AIDS.

People are desperate for a cure and to not live with a disease that is going to end with their wasting away and dying as their immune system fails. No one should have the live like that. The above cure would save alot more people than anyone could realistically hope for; it's vastly beyond the best options that exist. As far as I can see, there isn't better and won't be. That would seem to me to be the absolute best solution is the release it. Nothing is perfect, but this is close enough.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-06-14 09:41pm

Keep in mind that there is a rate of morbidity and mortality from any medical procedure. Vaccines harm and kill thousands every year - yet we still give them. We risk illness and death for people who aren't even ill or infected. Pencillin kills some people. Asprin kills some people.

Hell, gastric bypass carries a 2% fatality rate for even the BEST surgeons and hospitals... and you're talking about a cure for a horrible disease that almost invariably results in death (and even when it doesn't, is still miserable, requires drugs with major side effects, etc.) and has only a 0.1% fataliy rate?

NOT release it? Are you fucking nuts?

Those are better odds than for a lot of accepted and routine procedures!

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2006-06-14 10:26pm

Simple numbers.

Release the virus, 0.1% MAXIMUM casualities out of 24,000,000+ that will die globally?

Cure the world, and build a memorial to those that died

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-06-15 11:32am

As others have said, this is a no-brainer. 0.001% fatality rate versus 100% fatality rate. Golly gee, I wonder what I'll pick . . . fuck, give me a backpack and a sprayer, I'll start introducing this new cure myself.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-15 12:14pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:As others have said, this is a no-brainer. 0.001% fatality rate versus 100% fatality rate. Golly gee, I wonder what I'll pick . . . fuck, give me a backpack and a sprayer, I'll start introducing this new cure myself.

Actually, it'd be a .1% fatality rate. 1 in every thousand.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-06-15 12:24pm

Zero132132 wrote:
GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:As others have said, this is a no-brainer. 0.001% fatality rate versus 100% fatality rate. Golly gee, I wonder what I'll pick . . . fuck, give me a backpack and a sprayer, I'll start introducing this new cure myself.
Actually, it'd be a .1% fatality rate. 1 in every thousand.

Bah, whoops.

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2006-06-15 02:47pm

The easiest way to think of this is that if you don't release it, you're actually killing more people.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-15 03:00pm

I think it would be a slightly more complex problem if 1 in every 10 died...

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-06-15 03:13pm

I don't see any moral quandary with this at all- as has been mentioned, AIDS is a terminal disease anyway.

CarsonPalmer · Post by **CarsonPalmer** » 2006-06-15 03:15pm

The problem would be more complex if the people who died did not suffer from AIDS. That would add another layer to it.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2006-06-15 04:00pm

RedImperator wrote:This is like saying, "There's a building full of children on fire. Do you spray it with a hose and risk one of them drowning, or do you let them all burn to death?" AIDS is eventually going to mutate so the cocktail doesn't work, and there are millions with no access to those drugs anyway. And that one in a thousand might not die of the bacteria, whereas they definitely will die of AIDS. The only problem I see is the potential for the bacteria to infect people who don't have HIV and sickening or killing 1 in 1000 people worldwide. That's a potential death toll of over 6 million, which changes the equation drastically. But the OP seems to assume the bacteria will only affect those with HIV.

There are liability issues as well. If they die from AIDS it's an "act of god" If they die from your cure your liable and thier relatives will tie you up in court till the end of time.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-15 04:07pm

Aeolus wrote:
RedImperator wrote:This is like saying, "There's a building full of children on fire. Do you spray it with a hose and risk one of them drowning, or do you let them all burn to death?" AIDS is eventually going to mutate so the cocktail doesn't work, and there are millions with no access to those drugs anyway. And that one in a thousand might not die of the bacteria, whereas they definitely will die of AIDS. The only problem I see is the potential for the bacteria to infect people who don't have HIV and sickening or killing 1 in 1000 people worldwide. That's a potential death toll of over 6 million, which changes the equation drastically. But the OP seems to assume the bacteria will only affect those with HIV.
There are liability issues as well. If they die from AIDS it's an "act of god" If they die from your cure your liable and thier relatives will tie you up in court till the end of time.

Not likely, since the government would be making this call, not a private individual. And there is no reason to believe that duty of care is breached in this case.

Post by **Edi** » 2006-06-15 04:30pm

Aeolus wrote:
RedImperator wrote:This is like saying, "There's a building full of children on fire. Do you spray it with a hose and risk one of them drowning, or do you let them all burn to death?" AIDS is eventually going to mutate so the cocktail doesn't work, and there are millions with no access to those drugs anyway. And that one in a thousand might not die of the bacteria, whereas they definitely will die of AIDS. The only problem I see is the potential for the bacteria to infect people who don't have HIV and sickening or killing 1 in 1000 people worldwide. That's a potential death toll of over 6 million, which changes the equation drastically. But the OP seems to assume the bacteria will only affect those with HIV.
There are liability issues as well. If they die from AIDS it's an "act of god" If they die from your cure your liable and thier relatives will tie you up in court till the end of time.

Any court in any country with an actual working legal system would tell such relatives to essentially go fuck themselves because the massive public interest in releasing the agent removes the liability. Can you imagine the reverse situation, not releasing it, and then getting sued for breaching duty of care?

THINK for a moment, and try to use something other than the navel-gazing "But it had a direct negative impact on me, and fuck the millions it saved" kind of thought processes that spawn that type of lawsuits.

Edi

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-06-15 05:12pm

This is a question?

And I want to highlight for the naysayers...

Roughly one out of a thousand people who have AIDs and are exposed to this 'cure' either fall seriously ill for a long time, or die.

These people are going to die, yet I have a chance to save the rest? Yes, I release and sleep well at night that I spared the world of this horrendous killer and hope that this scientist places another easy choice into my hands again.