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.