Would you die if you could help save millions?

[Malak]

The only issue with the scenario is that curing cancer kills millions.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yes.

 

[MustISO]

Too many people around as it is, let em die.

 

[her209]

I'd do it only if said pharma company signs an agreement that they will make no profit off the drug.

 

[sandorski]

The scenario is Ill Conceived. 2 Shots, one Cures Cancer, the other Kills, and I have to choose whether to risk it? Either the one asking you is some kind of Mad Scientist or is an extremely disorganized Scientist who forgot to properly label his vials. Also, it could be easily determined which is which simply by some elementary Testing on Lab Animals, so the scenario could only exist if the Scientist involved was a complete Schmuck who likely couldn't tie his shoe laces, nevermind Cure Cancer.

No sir, I'll be the stick in the mud who proclaims this thread: Dumb.

 

[JS80]

Stupid hypothetical is stupid.

 

[gevorg]

Yes, as long as they're American/European/Israeli.

 

[OCGuy]

Which people am I saving?

 

[BurnItDwn]

No. I like to live. I will do anything to preserve my own life, even if it costs others. Never the other way around.

 

[Hacp]

The scenario is Ill Conceived. 2 Shots, one Cures Cancer, the other Kills, and I have to choose whether to risk it? Either the one asking you is some kind of Mad Scientist or is an extremely disorganized Scientist who forgot to properly label his vials. Also, it could be easily determined which is which simply by some elementary Testing on Lab Animals, so the scenario could only exist if the Scientist involved was a complete Schmuck who likely couldn't tie his shoe laces, nevermind Cure Cancer.

No sir, I'll be the stick in the mud who proclaims this thread: Dumb.

Well it is possible that you found the binding site that binds to the specific protein you are looking to target but it so happens that the drug also targets other binding sites in your body and kills the cells. They've probably gone through thousands of iterations and have two candidates that seem to avoid normal cells to an extent in vitro.

Testing in animals however has been a mixed bag. One drug works well in chimps and the other drug works well on monkeys. If the drug didn't work well, the organism died. You still haven't identified which pathway the drug is taking to kill healthy cells and time is short, it could take decades to find a solution. Or, there could be a secret clinical trial involving two people. At least one is certain to die but the other may be saved if the drug works. Which will you choose?

 

[sandorski]

Well it is possible that you found the binding site that binds to the specific protein you are looking to target but it so happens that the drug also targets other binding sites in your body and kills the cells. They've probably gone through thousands of iterations and have two candidates that seem to avoid normal cells to an extent in vitro.

Testing in animals however has been a mixed bag. One drug works well in chimps and the other drug works well on monkeys. If the drug didn't work well, the organism died. You still haven't identified which pathway the drug is taking to kill healthy cells and time is short, it could take decades to find a solution. Or, there could be a secret clinical trial involving two people. At least one is certain to die but the other may be saved if the drug works. Which will you choose?

Shens.

 

[lothar]

Lets say that a pharmaceutical company is one step from finding a cure for cancer. The final step on the trials are 2 shots.

shot 1 - will cure all cancer

shot 2 - will kill you

You are asked to volunteer to take 1 of the 2 shots. The drug company will then know which shot is the final drug, and as a result millions of lives will be saved.

The kicker is, your sacrifice will never be known. If you die, your name will never be honored, as the test are top secret.

Do you volunteer?

That depends...
1.) Do I already have Cancer?
2.) How much time do I have to live if I don't take any shots?

Your poll question cannot be answered until you've answered those.

I only sacrifice myself to save myself.
Why should I care about sacrificing my life for millions of people that are not even my family members?

 

[lothar]

<double facepalm here>

Lets say you have anal cancer from years of unprotected anal sex.

do you volunteer now?

1.) What is the average life expectancy of anal cancer(or whatever hypothetical cancer you're using for this poll question) from the time of diagnosis?
2.) How much time are the doctors estimating that I have left to live?

 

[SandEagle]

did the world run out of monkeys to test this shit on?

 

[lxskllr]

I vote no. Ignoring the flaws of the setup, and getting to the point, I'm pro cancer. There's too many people already, and it's getting to the point our only (un)natural control left is war. You have to die sometime, and cancer is as good as anything.

 

[arcenite]

I'd say no; and tell them they'd probably have better luck if they don't ask people who enjoy life.

 

[Slew Foot]

Hell no, find some guy on death row to shoot up.

 

[oogabooga]

I'd like to think yes... but in the OP's situation, probably not.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

I'd do it. Even if it was a randomly chosen dozen people, together they'd prolly contribute more to humanity than I could by myself. I don't say probably because I have an inflated sense of worth but because I will be a doctor so I hope to save more than a dozen people in my career.

 

[ShawnD1]

Everyone who voted no is an asshole and everyone who voted yes is a lying asshole.

 

[TuxDave]

Hell no, my wife would kill me if I volunteered to die....

......

 

[rudeguy]

without any debate

 

[Hacp]

Hell no, my wife would kill me if I volunteered to die....

......

When you die, can I have your wife?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Of course. You've got to be extremely egocentric to say no.

or just incredibly wise

no one can be "saved", everyone will die sooner or later

 

[Inspector Jihad]

So its cool if I kill you?