Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 May 2017, 1:22 pm

fate
2. He demonstrably argued "not y" was the same as "y." That is an epic logical fallacy.


I gave you a complete logical answer to your question. Even though your question was something of a contradiction.
Your question was ...
Fate
Is "unlikely" a scientific certainty?

Hint: that is a "yes" or "no" question.

From the National Commission on Forensic Science
Additionally, the legal community should recognize that
medical professionals and other scientists do not routinely use “to a reasonable scientific certainty” when expressing conclusions outside of the courts since there is no foundational scientific basis for its use
.
https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/641331/download


Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt. Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur.

My answer explained the science of the medicine and explained why
rickyp
There would be some benefit to medical science by inflicting more suffering on the baby. But there is no hope, whatsoever, that this treatment will have a genuinely positive affect on the baby.

That is a complete answer.
I can't help it if your grounding in science is incomplete to the extent you can emply the phrase "scientific certainty like it means something."

Your argument for courts allowing the parents and the for profit doctor the freedom to conduct a cruel expensive medical experiment on the baby is "There's always a chance".
I offered you the medical science that shows there isn't....
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 May 2017, 1:33 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
2. He demonstrably argued "not y" was the same as "y." That is an epic logical fallacy.


I gave you a complete logical answer to your question. Even though your question was something of a contradiction.
Your question was ...
Fate
Is "unlikely" a scientific certainty?

Hint: that is a "yes" or "no" question.

From the National Commission on Forensic Science
Additionally, the legal community should recognize that
medical professionals and other scientists do not routinely use “to a reasonable scientific certainty” when expressing conclusions outside of the courts since there is no foundational scientific basis for its use
.
https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/641331/download


Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt. Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur.

My answer explained the science of the medicine and explained why
rickyp
There would be some benefit to medical science by inflicting more suffering on the baby. But there is no hope, whatsoever, that this treatment will have a genuinely positive affect on the baby.

That is a complete answer.
I can't help it if your grounding in science is incomplete to the extent you can emply the phrase "scientific certainty like it means something."

Your argument for courts allowing the parents and the for profit doctor the freedom to conduct a cruel expensive medical experiment on the baby is "There's always a chance".
I offered you the medical science that shows there isn't....


That is a whole bunch of effort to justify your inability to answer a yes or no question.

No thanks.

You contradicted yourself. Your answer was not "logical." It was a logical fallacy. Sadly, you cannot comprehend the difference.

You said:
ricky the contradictory wrote:So, in this case, "most likely" means certainty.


I gave definitions, which you cannot refute, that show those are non-equal terms.

So, you've argued that 'x' and 'not x" are the same thing. Then you've spent two posts trying to prove that theorem.

Again, no thanks.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 May 2017, 8:51 am

fate
I gave definitions, which you cannot refute, that show those are non-equal terms.


You gave a colloquial phrase, which doesn't exist in medical science.

Fate
That is a whole bunch of effort to justify your inability to answer a yes or no question.


I gave you a complete answer ... Which was more respectful of the question, and the spirit of the question than you deserved.
Plus you are too myopic to realize the answer was no.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 May 2017, 9:22 am

rickyp wrote:fate
I gave definitions, which you cannot refute, that show those are non-equal terms.


You gave a colloquial phrase, which doesn't exist in medical science.


I used YOUR phrase.

That it "doesn't exist in medical science" didn't stop you from trying to make it appear so by declaring it the equal of a scientific term.

Plus you are too myopic to realize the answer was no.


Sure, blame me. I ask a yes/no question which you blather on about and eventually conclude that two non-equivalent items are equivalent, then you claim it's my fault for not realizing your blather was meant to be "no?"

Or, you could have said "no" and then explained it.

But, you're wrong anyway. They didn't say there was "no chance" of it helping.

If it was your life on the line, or your child's, I suppose you'd just shrug your shoulders and say "not worth it" when they propose a long shot of saving your life, or your child's?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 May 2017, 5:59 pm

fate
I used YOUR phrase

No you didn't. Or you could have quoted me. You didn't. You used the word " unlikely" from the language in the English Courts ruling... Not my words... I'll bold what you could have quoted in the following...
You then attempted the Lloyd Christmas arguement.

rickyp wrote:
The inverse is occurring in this case. Rather than withhold treatment that might benefit the child, the parents want to attempt a medical experiment, that has no chance of a positive outcome..
.
Fate
You know this to a mathematical certainty?


And here...

Fate
Is "unlikely" a scientific certainty?
Hint: that is a "yes" or "no" question.


Fate
Sure, blame me. I ask a yes/no question which you blather on about and eventually conclude that two non-equivalent items are equivalent, then you claim it's my fault for not realizing your blather was meant to be "no?

I can't be responsible for your problems in cognition, reasoning or basic reading skills.
I do hold you responsible for a dishonest question that purports to represent what I said. But doesn't. Try quoting ... Or reading better.
However the science behind the issue was enlightening to me and perhaps others. (Blood brain etc... Not blather by the way. Actual medical science...)

Fate
If it was your life on the line, or your child's, I suppose you'd just shrug your shoulders and say "not worth it" when they propose a long shot of saving your life, or your child's?

I think I explained the context of the decision I would make in this particular case.
And context is everything.
I think the court made the right decision in this particular case, and that the medical practitioner in the US willing to do the experiment on the baby was acting immorally. (If he was willing to do the work for no fees, perhaps my opinion of him would be swayed.)
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 May 2017, 7:25 pm

While the chances that the treatment would work seem very low, wouldn't assessing the decision from the evidence before the judge be more prudent than having a layman (Ricky) giving his opinion (based in part on the blood-brain barrier to drugs)on it based on medical evidence not before the court? The judge said the US doctor said the treatment was either very unlikely or unlikely to help. Pretty clearly the judge favored the British experts--who indicated that it would not help--which was probably reasonable enough. But even though I suspect the US doctor was sugercoating the chances of recovery...not sure that the judge should make that call when there is a disagreement among reputable experts, at least in a situation when the potential harm of treatment seems relatively low.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 May 2017, 11:00 am

freeman3
But even though I suspect the US doctor was sugercoating the chances of recovery...not sure that the judge should make that call when there is a disagreement among reputable experts, at least in a situation when the potential harm of treatment seems relatively low.

The language of the English judge was not fair in explaining the odds of the treatment working with any efficacy
even the US doctor said he only "hoped" that the treatment would transit the blood brain barrier.
A hope based upon the realization that if, as a large molecule, it did cross the blood bran barrier ... it would be the first time ever ....
I suspect he would have offered less hope if he wasn't going to make a lot of money from accepting the case..

freeman3
,
at least in a situation when the potential harm of treatment seems relatively low.

So its okay to experiment on the baby because, "what have we got to lose"?
The suffering of the baby and the indignity of the lingering death........are potential harms are they not?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 May 2017, 11:51 am

Well, it's 2 percent if a small molecule right? Stepping into the baby shoes-who has never had a real chance at living--yes I think a reasonable baby would take a shot, even a very remote one in that situation. It's not as if they get to reboot. Life is one and done. It's rational for a baby--which has a whole lifetime ahead of him/her--to take even an extreme long shot when the downside is some sort of idea of "wrongful living". The calculus is different for a 75 year old.

I agree that by far the most likely outcome is the baby gets the treatment, it does not work, the baby dies. But at least the parents would have the solace of knowing they did everything they could for him. Why take that way from them? Why take away the baby's extreme long-shot for a miracle cure based on the supposed idea that the baby is enduring so much pain (even though there is no evidence for it) that it would not be worth taking a shot? I don't get it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 May 2017, 12:10 pm

freeman3 wrote:Well, it's 2 percent if a small molecule right? Stepping into the baby shoes-who has never had a real chance at living--yes I think a reasonable baby would take a shot, even a very remote one in that situation. It's not as if they get to reboot. Life is one and done. It's rational for a baby--which has a whole lifetime ahead of him/her--to take even an extreme long shot when the downside is some sort of idea of "wrongful living". The calculus is different for a 75 year old.

I agree that by far the most likely outcome is the baby gets the treatment, it does not work, the baby dies. But at least the parents would have the solace of knowing they did everything they could for him. Why take that way from them? Why take away the baby's extreme long-shot for a miracle cure based on the supposed idea that the baby is enduring so much pain (even though there is no evidence for it) that it would not be worth taking a shot? I don't get it.


Perfectly said.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 May 2017, 5:58 am

freeman3
Well, it's 2 percent if a small molecule right
?
Except 1) Its not a small molecule. Its a large complex molcule.
And even it were a small molecule, if you read the explanation, only 2% penetration won't provide enough of the substance to have any effect...
Second: the baby's brain is not going to develop. Ever.

This is NOT an extreme long shot. What the US doctor provided was false hope.

Charlie's condition had greatly worsened and the view of all here was that his epileptic encephalopathy was such that his brain damage was severe and irreversible, that treatment was potentially painful but incapable of achieving anything positive for him.

There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 May 2017, 9:36 am

Would you allow the parents to try the treatment if it had a 1% chance of success? What chance of success would you suggest would be the minimum chance for the parent to try the treatment?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 May 2017, 2:20 pm

freeman3
Would you allow the parents to try the treatment if it had a 1% chance of success? What chance of success would you suggest would be the minimum chance for the parent to try the treatment?


I think every event needs to be judged on its own merits. I believe that doctors and hospitals want whats best for their patients, and endeavor to provide care to the best of their abilities. When a doctor or hospital decides to council parents or guardians to discontinue treatment its because they firmly believe in the ethics of their council. Their council in this case would have provided a dignified death to Charlie, rather than a potentially pain filled few months before a inevitable demise.
In this case a doctor in the US offered a service even before he had patient files, let alone done a personal examination. After seeing the English hospitals case file, he offered no genuine hope for the child.
In this case, the judge was right.
In China there's a saying, " To have justice one requires wise judges".
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 May 2017, 3:53 pm

See, where you and I fundamentally differ is that I see the family unit as having a sort of barrier against state intrusion unless and until important state interests justify intrusion. Here, the downside of experimental treatment was minor and therefore there was simply no reason for the State to get involved. When you erase the barriers between the State and the family or the State and individual and base government intrusions into private concerns based on rational or utilitarian concerns...you start down a path of government oppression. At the end of the day, there were not sufficient government interests involved for the State to get paternalistically involved, regardless of the merits of the ultimate decision. Your reference to it being more beneficial to have the money go to Somali children indicates your lack of concern for parental rights here.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 May 2017, 8:27 am

freeman3
Here, the downside of experimental treatment was minor and therefore there was simply no reason for the State to get involved

I see a much larger downside. I don't think hopeless medical experiments that prolong suffering and result in indignities to the person, should be conducted on children. Well, on anyone, excepting perhaps willing cognizant and openly compliant adults.
Neither did the English doctors.
I think you should consider that the parents were just abusing the child.

freeman3
At the end of the day, there were not sufficient government interests involved for the State to get paternalistically involved, regardless of the merits of the ultimate decision. Your reference to it being more beneficial to have the money go to Somali children indicates your lack of concern for parental rights here
.
Does the baby not have a right to dignity? Can a parent put their child through any level of pain or suffering without restraint from any person or body? Especially when the doctors actually treating the child first hand take an opposing view..... I think the parents have lost their way.

I threw in the moral question of whether it is right to spend money recklessly in hopeless medical remedies at the expense of others who could be treated with the resources, as an ancillary argument. Its not central, especially since the cost was privately borne in this case.
On the other hand, the profiteering by the US doctor is...
It is relevant to understand whether or not the only reason he offers the medical procedure to the parents is profit. If it is, then the state, or perhaps the medical ethics body that has jurisdiction, has a role to play in protecting not just the rights of the baby but the parents from an unscrupulous practitioner.
Decisions about patient care, resources and therapeutic regimes should be soundly based on appropriate ethological, as well as scientific, principle. Not the profit motive.
I've had friends and acquaintances pursue medical solutions that are little more than quackery. (i.e. Gold injections for arthritis..) When the actual clinical conditions of this babies condition are considered its hard to see that the US doctor is offering anything genuine.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 May 2017, 10:59 am

The doctor offered hope. Hope for a child who is dying. Thank you for your compassion toward the grieving parents.

As for your claim that the parents are abusive...
Did the English court declare the parents unfit? No.
Did they declare the parents abusive? No.

Your claims of the motive being only profit, is unfounded. Besides, who are you to say what people can, or should, spend their money on?

When you can back up the claim of abuse, feel free to post that.
When you have criminal fraud against the doctor, post that.

Hope... Sometimes it is all that people have.