Battlezone Forums

Idunevenknow,bro.

Is he doing God's work?:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

Apparently they also mistook a white surfer for Dorner... This guy only gets a rental car though, I guess you have to actually catch a bullet to get a new car out of the deal.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 5268.story

How is there an ethical issue there? It's just recycling.

The issue is that the owner of that genetic material, is probably entirely unaware that his cells are being used to make someone else a lot of money... Absolute unconditional ownership of our own specific genetic material is clearly something that will have to happen at some point, just don't expect anyone from the medical/science industries to stand up and say it for us. It is a fact in reality, it should be a legal right too. There may even be a very compelling case for familial genetic ownership/rights too.

MrTwosheds wrote:

How is there an ethical issue there? It's just recycling.

The issue is that the owner of that genetic material, is probably entirely unaware that his cells are being used to make someone else a lot of money... Absolute unconditional ownership of our own specific genetic material is clearly something that will have to happen at some point, just don't expect anyone from the medical/science industries to stand up and say it for us. It is a fact in reality, it should be a legal right too. There may even be a very compelling case for familial genetic ownership/rights too.

If they relinquish ownership of the material (I didn't read that article so I don't know if that is the case) then its their own fault. You know that image, the "parked domain girl"? That image is a stock photo sold by a photographer of his sister. It gets used so much, but the minimal usage fee was paid and its forever available for them to use. Should she get more, probably, but she and her brother made it available the way they did.

That one.


Frankly, I think any part of the human body that is going to waste (including the remains of the dead) should be recycled. What else would become of it? It would be incinerated, or buried underground. A pointless waste of potentially useful material.

f they relinquish ownership of the material...

It is quite clear that the babies from whom the material is taken are not in a position to give permission. It is also quite clear that none of us are able to physically prevent people from taking and using our genetic material, dead skin and hair are the most obvious sources. There will be a whole spectrum of abuses that these material could be used for as well good uses. If a particular person is found to possess a genetic immunity from a certain disease, for example, that may lead to a billion dollar medical application. Then the only truly fair way of dealing with this is to legally ensure that we all own our own specific genetic material and the rights to authorise its use or not for any purpose. I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this approach. Given the potential of scientific advances, it is the only way to proceed in a sensible manner.

What else to you propose be done with it?

Parents are the ones who decide up to a certain age because children do not have the mental faculties.

AHadley wrote:What else to you propose be done with it?

For a lot of people their remains do still serve a purpose. Wether thats realistic, or even if it may be respected, is second to the individuals beliefs in regard to their own body, imo.

I for one dont care 'much' for what will be done to my remains, but I do want to be sure no things happen that I clasify as 'sick'.

2Sheds does raise a very good point.
Say somebody is found to somehow be in possession of material that could cure cancer. Is this person free to say that he/she will not allow any material to be used to facilitate this cure? Should this person be free to say so?

Only if that person happens to be a government-linked pharmaceutical corporation that can limit access to produce extraordinary profits from the shortage.

If it's a meat person, take what you want and make sausage with the rest.

Red Spot wrote:Say somebody is found to somehow be in possession of material that could cure cancer. Is this person free to say that he/she will not allow any material to be used to facilitate this cure? Should this person be free to say so?

Depends. Morally or legally?

Say somebody is found to somehow be in possession of material that could cure cancer. Is this person free to say that he/she will not allow any material to be used to facilitate this cure? Should this person be free to say so?

Or more importantly, will they get paid for the use of what is undeniably their own personal property?

Red Spot wrote:2Sheds does raise a very good point.
Say somebody is found to somehow be in possession of material that could cure cancer. Is this person free to say that he/she will not allow any material to be used to facilitate this cure? Should this person be free to say so?

It is theirs, however, they better be prepared for legal gymnastics. And laws on the books, which I don't agree with, would allow the US gov to just take it.