I don’t know much about nazis but I thought an important part of their rhetoric was to draw distinctions between types of human.
So they’d not see “10bn humans”, they’d see maybe 100m aryan and 9.9bn “untermensch”; the latter being equivalent to rats available to be experimented on.
I just find rats to be much more preferable, pleasant and considerate creatures than humans. I see humans as a single tier of unterratten; totally different hierarchcy.
so how do you choose which humans to experiment on? bearing in mind that any sort of incentive will automatically select for a particular subset, and randomness will “obviously” need to exclude a particular subset
A researcher should offer a sufficient compensation package to get enough volunteers after explaining the risks. They should get independent medical advice too.
They can still randomize within the volunteers with treatment / placebo, and maybe use quotas, but they’d just have to extend their trial period until they’d achieved a measurably representative treatment and control group and enough volunteers to test the hypothesis to the required level.
This type of non-random sampling may very well have to be done anyway, for example if they needed the power to test efficacy and safety in all the potential dug interactions or co-morbidity scenarios. Not to mention any diagnosis requirement will also screen the sample which could be influenced by health care system resources and policies, not necessarily pure morbidity. So I think they can deal with non-random sampling in med research perfectly well.
I don’t know much about nazis but I thought an important part of their rhetoric was to draw distinctions between types of human.
So they’d not see “10bn humans”, they’d see maybe 100m aryan and 9.9bn “untermensch”; the latter being equivalent to rats available to be experimented on.
I just find rats to be much more preferable, pleasant and considerate creatures than humans. I see humans as a single tier of unterratten; totally different hierarchcy.
so how do you choose which humans to experiment on? bearing in mind that any sort of incentive will automatically select for a particular subset, and randomness will “obviously” need to exclude a particular subset
A researcher should offer a sufficient compensation package to get enough volunteers after explaining the risks. They should get independent medical advice too.
They can still randomize within the volunteers with treatment / placebo, and maybe use quotas, but they’d just have to extend their trial period until they’d achieved a measurably representative treatment and control group and enough volunteers to test the hypothesis to the required level.
This type of non-random sampling may very well have to be done anyway, for example if they needed the power to test efficacy and safety in all the potential dug interactions or co-morbidity scenarios. Not to mention any diagnosis requirement will also screen the sample which could be influenced by health care system resources and policies, not necessarily pure morbidity. So I think they can deal with non-random sampling in med research perfectly well.
Sounds like military recruitment which is one ethical step away from conscription.
So the poor and desperate.