If someone has tinnitus that makes them attempt suicide or contemplate attempting suicide, could one argue that the right thing to do would be to attempt to alleviate their tinnitus by trying to give them something like what Frequency is working on, for example?
The whole morality/ethicality issue is arguably as complex as tinnitus itself.
For example predilection toward suicide isn't the same as a person deemed to be terminally ill.
I notice you are from Sweden and one of the cool aspects of this community is...it's a true international community even though our common bond is suffering....
In America, our president has been a champion of what is coined, "Right to Try"....which is...the right to use illegal meds as a last resort to try and help people dying. This is a big leap forward and of course it pushes the envelope of the drug approval process if many people are helped by a given experimental med.
Many believe, I am sure a chorus here...that the bi-modal protocol should be fast tracked as many of us are frustrated that Dr. Shore who by her nature is pedantically adhering to the discipline of vetting this technology but meanwhile, Rome burns. Us. Many people suffering here who could be helped by fast tracking this technology.
But again, predisposition toward suicide even due to suffering based upon acute tinnitus would not warrant the immorality of what Earing proposes. I am kind with John...we differ on many other things...but I believe those that have perpetrated grave crimes against humanity on some level should be test subjects. But others would object to this as inhumane which it is on some level.
The biggest problem...and this is a huge moral and ethical dilemma is to make decisions like 'right to die'...who is allowed to make this decision? Euthanasia. So there are many facets to these difficult decisions. Who do you help and who do you hurt in the process?
Member
