Vanity-Am I the only one having an issue with not being able to see a full page of articles?

I hate to post this but it seems to be happening on a regular basis. I can go into FR and scroll down what seems to be a half page and it goes no further. My preferences are set to 50/50. If I log out, I can get the full page but, it seems odd.

I am logged in, except when I am not. My sister is not in the shower. There are no moose around here. My bieber is fine. and so on

Has anyone else been experiencing this issue? Any suggestions? I realize I can just continue on logged out but.....

You’re not the only one. It’s welcome in my case, I didn’t want to read any more I <3 SCIENCE baby-killer ethics from exDemMom (not so much “Ex” from what I see). “I’ve studied ethics...” Apparently you have to STUDY ethics, not HAVE good ones. Mine’s “chilling”? At least they’re not Satanic.

You aren't good at actual critical thought, are you? And I'll bet you're just as bad with science and logic.

Please try to think rationally for a bit.

There are very strong ethical and moral principles against "testing" untried "therapies" on human subjects. The fact that I point this out, and that the idea of potentially inflicting great pain and agony on a helpless baby who has no control over what others do to him is horrifying to me does not make me a monster.

I would suggest you stop watching TV shows where the scientists retreat to a lab and do frantic research non-stop for days to come up with a cure just in the nick of time to heroically save a dying patient's life. Those shows are fiction. That kind of stuff does not happen in real life.

Here is a description of a real-life phase 1 clinical trial of a drug that had been found safe at 500 times the dose during animal trials: "Roughly five minutes after the last participant had received his dose, the participant who had received the first dose complained of headache, and soon afterwards fever and pain. He took his shirt off, complaining that he felt like he was burning. Shortly after, the remaining participants who received the actual drug also became ill, vomiting and complaining of severe pain. The first patient was transferred to the Northwick Park hospital's intensive care unit 12 hours after infusion, with the others following within the next 4 hours. A severely affected volunteer, Mohammed Abdalla, a 28-year-old who said he had hoped to set his brother up in business in Egypt, was described as having suffered a ballooned head. This led to his description as being similar to the "Elephant Man". A volunteer also lost his fingers and toes as a result of being injected with the drug."

Maybe, if you read that and understand its implications, you can begin to understand why I have such reservations about administering a drug candidate that has never been tested beyond cell culture and mice to a child who cannot possibly make an informed decision. The chance of such an untested drug candidate actually having therapeutic effect is low, while the chance of doing real harm and causing pain is high.

And also, do not read into my words of warning anything beyond the warning. If there were evidence of a treatment whose safety profile is known and whose biochemical mechanism of action suggests that it could be effective in Baby Charlie's disease, I would be all for trying it. All I have really done is warn caution, because there is no such evidence--no actual details have been publicized.

Please explain to me how pointing out that it is morally and ethically reprehensible to experiment “just because” on a terminally ill child equates to wanting to kill children.

Why don’t you read up on some of the abuses of helpless human subjects committed in the name of research—and yes, do read up on what the Nazis and Japanese did during WWII as research. As I told you, I’ve studied the moral and ethical considerations of human research. Those “researchers” also deluded themselves that the ends justifies the means.

Your attitude seems to be “Hey, he’s dying anyway—so who cares how much he suffers by being used as a guinea pig?”

*I’m* not the one with a problem here.

My, aren't you the nasty person.

All because you’re a nurse who thinks she has Nobel-prize knowledge, enough so to imply all doctors who disagree with you to be quacks. You’re evil, ignorant, and narcissistic. At what hospital do you work? I want to make sure I and none of my relatives EVER go there, with “angels of mercy” like yourself working there.

You are making a huge assumption there. If you would actually have read anything I wrote critically, instead of running it through a confirmation bias filter in which you interpret everything I say as "proof" that I am some kind of pro-death fanatic, you might have been able to figure out that I am a medical researcher and that considerations of research ethics and morality are *central* to my work.

As I said, I have studied the ethics of research throughout my career. As a PhD level biochemist, I am completely qualified to look at the "treatment" being proposed and to determine that it is unlikely to improve little Charlie's condition, because 1) it is being developed for a *different* mitochondrial disease, which has a different biomolecular basis, 2) even if it were developed for Charlie's specific disease, it cannot repair the brain damage, but only slow its progression (and the brain damage is severe at this time), and 3) this "treatment" has barely even begun the earliest stage of animal testing and thus is *years* away from being ready for the most basic stage of human testing, which is the safety stage.

So, since the treatment is as likely to work as I am likely to win the Olympics swimming competition (hey, I don't drown in water), I have to look at the question of whether it is ethical to use little Charlie as a guinea pig. The chance of causing him distress (scientific euphemism for pain) is considerable. Being a child, the ethics of conducting tests on Charlie are especially delicate. An adult can stop participating in research at any time for any reason. But little Charlie does not have that option. He cannot communicate. He cannot say, "This is painful. I've suffered enough." Since he does not have autonomy, those who have the power to make decisions for him must be extremely mindful of the consequences of those decisions.

I'm also looking at a history of medical experimentation that has taken place just because there *might* be some knowledge gained--the Nazis and Japanese in WWII, the practice of experimenting on institutionalized mentally retarded children which continued into the 1960s, etc. And I don't see any benefit to adding little Charlie to the long list of victims of medical "experimentation" which has taken place without ethical oversight.

You don’t care how much agony little Charlie might suffer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can’t have it both ways. Either he’s suffering, which means the disease is not having the effect that’s claimed, or he’s got brain damage preventing suffering.

I wouldn’t expect less cognitive dissonance from a baby-killing Hillary voter. You don’t really care, you just pretend to do so you don’t get accused of loving infanticide.

Now there’s some hospital corners you’ve got to fold, before you smother some senior citizen stealing your oxygen.

BY THE WAY, your entire Nazi argument (Godwin’s Law, how wonderful) falls flat on its face when you realize Mengele’s experimentation started with healthy children and killed them, not trying to save sick children with any sort of desperate measures.

So go kill some babies and revel in evil, demonic joy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.