I actually have a specific personal example that is relevant to this, but I'm still not clear what Nessie thinks so I was sort of holding off on it. But maybe I'll just throw it out there when I get back from the gym.
I actually have a specific personal example that is relevant to this, but I'm still not clear what Nessie thinks so I was sort of holding off on it. But maybe I'll just throw it out there when I get back from the gym.
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It pertains to the role of government power. Funding reflects our priorities, cutting funding can have the practical effect of a "ban".
You're saying it's okay for teh evil gummint to tell physicians and scientists how to practice medicine and research. Then you turn around and say it's not okay for teh evil gummint to expand healthcare.
Seems you don't mind gov't intervention at all, as long as it meets with your approval.
Of course not the end of the world. Destructive to the US leadership in health research? Certainly. Same goes with the networking lunacy. Why is it conservative ideology always seems to be aimed at holding back progress?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Long-term? Yes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Any police state, benevolent or not, is going to grow less transparent over time. Institutions and organizations have recognizable agent behavior of their own and a key behavior is they attempt to shield themselves from stimuli outside their control. Reducing transparency makes it harder for external sources to tell what's going on and generate responses, and it makes it harder for responses which are generated to penetrate deeply into the institution or organization. That deliberately and primarily includes negative feedback which necessarily means it includes the response to abusive behavior. Consequently abusive types will gravitate and collect in such places, where external pressure has a harder time dislodging them. Given the freedom to act with greater impunity some will take advantage of it and increase the scope of their abusive actions and eventually some of the institutions and organizations within the police state will undergo interest capture by such people and the police state will no longer be benevolent.
Another approach. I hate saying this, because I'm really a reality-trumps-theory type of person, but I think you're a bit too focused on current forms and not paying sufficient attention to the theory and what the modern *read 16th-century and up* republican and democratic models are doing at a process level. Modern theory holds *and I've seen nothing that would contradict this* that any government rules from and with the consent of the governed. That consent does not have to be willing, it can be coerced, but if it's not there then a person is not being ruled. When a fair amount of people are not consenting then government isn't very effective. A police state ultimately relies on force to impose its will, to gain that consent. Republics and democracies formalize the consent and seek it openly. Police states, as my first approach emphasized, are prone to non-transparency. Republics and democracies generally move the other way. Their institutions and organizations are just as interested in non-transparency as those of a police state but the need for formal consent of the governed, with their interest in transparency *so they can apply stimuli easier* provides a strong counter. Non-transparent systems are not very responsive to the wishes and interests of those being ruled and as a consequence maintaining consent is much harder and as this problem compounds and grows, it's going to be overthrown. Governments which actively seek the consent of the governed may be more volatile but their increased general volatility actually makes them more stable over the long-term. It provides a mechanism for self-correction, which is something a police state does not have over the long term.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Very intersting. In this first paragraph, I am reminded of the pedophile problem and the Catholic Church's long time response.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
What is wrong with you
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
That's what I think about our new healthcare law.
You didn't articulate a position, you made some quips about lolbertarian gun laws. Yeah, you sort of made a point, but in a really loosey-goosey way.What is wrong with you
My dilemma happened to a friend of mine. They were relatively new parents (10 months old at the time, I think) and the kid was crying uncontrollably in the night and it hadn't happened before. She was also running a bit of a fever. It went on and on until they felt they had to call a hospital for instructions. The 911 dispatcher sent an ambulance. By the time the ambulance arrived, the baby suddenly became more relaxed and was drifting off to sleep.
The ambulance came and the parents said everything was fine, they would take the baby to the doctor in the morning. The ambulance EMTs said they had "a policy" that any call involving an infant required taking the infant to the emergency room. The parents thought that was ridiculous, the kid was asleep by now. Plus they didn't want their insurance company to pay a few hundred dollars for a pointless ambulance ride. So they asked the EMTs to leave. The EMTs refused.
This went on and on until the husband just forced the EMTs out, not so much physically but just kept inching them towards the door and closing it. The EMTs radioed for police officers, who then came and started ringing the bell (which woke up the baby) and demanding to be let in.
My friends refused and were screaming at the cops and EMTs to go away and leave them alone. It's not clear if this was an actual regulation or just some stupid ambulance policy. But it went on and on until my friend said, "My baby was sleep until you woke her up. You can't enter my property, this is harassment and if you don't leave I'm just going to call 911 again and say you're harassing me. The cops finally gave up.
So my question is would it be appropriate to allow the officers to break down the door and force entry. After all, from their perspective they just heard from EMTs who were kicked out of a house with a screaming 10 month old inside. Can there be a blanket permissibility for entry or do we really want to risk (from the officer's perspective) that a baby could be seriously harmed?
Whatever, but what the Fuck does my loosey-goosiness have to do with you releasing your anecdotes?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Why Buy the Cow if the Milk Is Free?
You're fucked up.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Thank you for patronizing the Dreadnaughts.
It's incomprehension, not patronization; one cannot patronize that which one can't even perceive to understand.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Strange story that didn't have much to do with the gun law. Unless your friend was prepared to shoot officers if they forced entry....after threatening them for responding to his infant's emergency?
No offense, but your friends sound typical of emergency responder worst fears; people who dial 911 in haste or hysteria, can't be calmed by the dispatcher, refuse treatment when an ambulance or police shows up, then get angry and threatening to everyone responding. Same people who needed professional intervention then deny professional intervention. To save a $200 ambulance fee covered by insurance? They should be charged more than that for 'abusing the emergency 911 system'.
This thread isn't about a gun law, it's about whether it's appropriate to make laws allowing the police to enter a home at any time, IE make it illegal to refuse entry to an officer.
Trust me, these are calm parents. They just couldn't calm the kid down after an unusually long time and she was running a fever. Their doctor didn't pick up the emergency cell, so they called 911 and described the issue for advice. The dispatcher said she felt an EMT was required to check out the baby in person. Then the EMTs said it was "policy" to take the infant back to the emergency room no matter what. I've never heard of being required to take someone back in an ambulance and charge them. Especially when the patient is sleeping again.
In other words, when do we want "professionals" doing their jobs, and when do want "lay people" dictating what's in their job description, and making it law?
I wouldn't go so far as to make it illegal to refuse entry to an officer. Some circumstances may warrant that. There are places with police corruption, and citizens who don't trust cops at all (and it's not necessarily criminals who feel that way). There are cops that abuse no-knock warrants, or get the wrong address....etc. I don't think that can be fixed with a law aimed at people in their own homes.
It's known "policy" that 911 dispatchers can't "diagnose over the phone". Why your friends sought "medical advice" from dispatch is....well, weird. They have two options: send a responder or refer them to a hospital/physician. If it was accidental poisoning, they'd connect them to Poison Control for immediate instructions and send an ambulance. If they need help doing CPR or first aid, they can walk them through verbally and send an ambulance.
And yes, AFAIK, it's "policy" for all EMTs responding to infants and children....to make sure they're seen by a physician, but not the 'next day'. Any idea how much liability that would expose them to, when only MDs can diagnose? Not to mention future calls from parents with crying feverish kids a nightmare guessing game. Either they'll escort a car to the hospital or take the child in the ambulance. By calling 911 those parents gave consent for the EMTs to do their jobs. The only way their responsibility can be waived is....you got it....when police show up.
Dread, it sucks but they probably couldn't leave the kid without getting a proper assessment from a suitable physician. I understand the reluctance of your friends, but in this case you've gotta weigh their reluctance and inconvenience against the risk of missing a serious and preventable condition in a baby. Can you imagine the consequences? I'm afraid those EMTs did what they felt they had to do in a situation where they had cause to think that a baby's health--as well as their own jobs--was in jeopardy.
And do you see now the problem with your ridiculous healthcare system that gives parents financial incentives to jeopardize the health of their children while fighting with EMTs and messing with the police?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
See that actually makes sense. Reminds me of how the firefighters in the Zionist Entity once got a call about a woman who hadn't been seen out of her apartment for days. So before entering the firefighters got the police to come so there would be lots of witnesses due to accusations of firefighter theft in the past.
Yes, Bush singlehandedly broke our telecom system system.
Do you forget the whole thing about scientists finding clever ways to bypass the need for stem cells?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/science/21stem.html
It's not perfect, but ultimately this was a serious ethical issue and a decision that wasn't made lightly (Bush devotes the whole third chapter of his book to the issue). Ideally we could rise above the "Bush broke things because him stoopid and hates science" meme from 2001-4.Just a followup to this thread of argument. I just saw this article in Science magazine regarding funding for one kind of Ebryonic research vs. induced pluripotency research.....
Research on Induced Pluripotent and Embryonic Stem Cells 'Inextricably Intertwined'
by Jocelyn Kaiser on 10 June 2011, 2:41 PM | Permanent Link | 0 Comments
Email Print | More
Previous Article
Enlarge Image
Credit: C. T. Scott et al., Cell, 145 (10 June 2011)
A new literature analysis confirms what stem cell scientists have been saying for some time: Studies of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are touted as an ethical alternative to human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), often involve hESCs as well. As a result, research that restricts funding for hESCs would also harm iPSC research.
HESCs are derived from human embryos, while iPSCs are made by reprogramming adult cells. In a study in the 10 June issue of Cell, Stanford University bioethicist Christopher Thomas Scott and colleagues analyze 2086 publications on hESCs and iPSCs from 1998 through 2010. While the number of publications using iPSCs has shot up since the first report on these cells in 2007, 100 of 161 iPSC papers (62%) published last year used both types of cells. Established investigators in particular tended to include hESCs, which are often used as controls.
Many researchers are worried that a lawsuit claiming federally funded hESC research violates a ban on research that destroys human embryos could stymie their work. The authors say that any decision by the courts or by legislators to limit funding for hESCs "will also have disastrous consequences for [iPSC funding] because research using the two different types of cell lines is deeply, perhaps inextricably, intertwined."
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I can't see any clear explanation of how they are intertwined...beyond genetics.
You want to make iPSCs behave like hESCs. Thus you actually have to use a certain amount of hESCs in order to make sure that your iPSC cell line actually behaves like it should. Clear enough for you? Should've been clear from the bolded part in the article if you had but deigned to think about it for 10 seconds.While the number of publications using iPSCs has shot up since the first report on these cells in 2007, 100 of 161 iPSC papers (62%) published last year used both types of cells. Established investigators in particular tended to include hESCs, which are often used as controls.
The point is that once your research is finished you hopefully have no need for hESCs and can simply use iPSCs. However, in order to get there, you'll need to use both variants.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I would be interested to know if they actually often detect much variance between HESCs and IPSCs or if they are just using them as controls for the sake of having them as controls. If there is a variance, it seems IPSCs have little value beyond becoming the building blocks of new tissue/hormones/etc. from stem cells.
Yes, Dread, molecular genetics is juuuuuust like building an airplane. Good gracious, do you want to tell us that you're studying molecular genetics now?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
From what I've read recently there's quite a bit of difference. Recent work in mice has dashed a bit of the early optimism over the induced cells.... Too bad Tear's not around, I'm sure he could offer some informed talk about this stuff.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Excuse me? Are you able to discuss anything without being over-the-top obnoxious? And when have I ever said I build airplanes.
If that is indeed the case then we're back to square one on this issue. Which BTW doesn't negate the whole ethical issue behind it, which is important to many people.
I hope its not square 1 - it may just be that its more complex and subtle than originally hoped for. And really the only thing caving to the ethical argument will get the US is loss of leadership in medical research - at least with this line of research which is extremely promising.... Its the same thing that caving to the anti-global warming propaganda is getting us - the loss of leadership in alternative/ advanced energy research and engineering, all of which sucks.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Well, Dread, there's a reason why it's called research and not engineering. You don't know whether something is worthwhile until you actually have examined it.Excuse me? Are you able to discuss anything without being over-the-top obnoxious? And when have I ever said I build airplanes.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
As I've said I don't think a federal ban on funding this research would be catastrophic. There is enough established potential here for private and university investors to be involved in the space. Though I do wish the federal government would drop the pretense.
But I really do disagree with this Thomas Friedman-esque idea that we're not leading the way in alternative energy. Go to Silicon Valley, there is tons of money flowing into alternative energy projects. These projects are more nuanced, sophisticated and promising than what countries like China are doing, which can basically be summarized as throwing a lot of money into cheap solar/wind suppliers. That's just China leveraging an advantage, not actually innovating (innovation is still illegal in China).
What's again, what is the point behind these vague and stupid insults? It looks like misunderstood my remark about biological building blocks. Or took it in some kind of insanely literal way.
And the point of this research based article is that it would be catastrophic. I'll defer to the article until you can bring something to support your, uh, opinion, more than just your, well, opinion.
Actually no, since as I've already said basically every lab in the country has federal funds provided equipment mixed with everything else and any lab that wanted to claim their research was 100% privately funded would have to prove none of the equipment they are using has any federal money involved. And imagine if federal dollars helped fund the building....There is enough established potential here for private and university investors to be involved in the space.
I hope you're right.But I really do disagree with this Thomas Friedman-esque idea that we're not leading the way in alternative energy. Go to Silicon Valley, there is tons of money flowing into alternative energy projects. These projects are more nuanced, sophisticated and promising than what countries like China are doing, which can basically be summarized as throwing a lot of money into cheap solar/wind suppliers. That's just China leveraging an advantage, not actually innovating (innovation is still illegal in China).
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
And what, precisely, are your credentials vis a vis this decision? Don't get me wrong, as long as the Latino demographic keeps growing I don't want the US gaining head in any area of research, but given that you live and breathe American air, oughtn't you have at least a passing interest in keeping American interests afloat on the globe?
Although you were waving your little flags at Ryan's budget plan, so I guess you do have America at heart, but are dead set in buying whatever the Village has for sale. So, never mind, I guess.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
All we have is them saying it would be, I haven't so far seen why. And if federal funding is really such a lifetime, I would imagine any federal funding restriction/cut on anything for any reason would also be "catastrophic."And the point of this research based article is that it would be catastrophic. I'll defer to the article until you can bring something to support your, uh, opinion, more than just your, well, opinion.
Nessie- I support the federal funding of stem cell research.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
