# A Hypothetical



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

You have a child. They're 5 years old. They have brain cancer. They're dying. You and your family's doctors have done absolutely everything they can, no question of it, but the nature of the cancer means they're beyond hope.

And yet, there's some doctor across the Atlantic (depending which side you're on!) who calls himself a maverick and is offering an unapproved treatment that has been unable to reach the upper stages of medical testing. It costs $200,000 (coincidentally the amount you have in your savings account) and the sales pitch relies on dubious testimonials. You know a little about the science, it sounds a bit whacky, and you know that researchers tend to get funding and have patients participate for free rather than ask them to pay such large sums of money. It's received a mix of good and bad press, but the good has tended to come from desperate families, and the bad from reputable news sources. In ordinary circumstances, you'd call him a quack and a conman.

But these aren't ordinary circumstances. As a parent of a dying 5 year old who wants to do _everything_ to help save them, do you pay the money to fuel a likely pseudoscientist in the hope that his treatment miraculously works?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

You'd disregard every grain of common sense & intelligence & bankrupt yourself for the snake-oil salesman. Money won't mean anything if your child lives & it won't mean anything if your child dies.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

sospiro said:


> You'd disregard every grain of common sense & intelligence & bankrupt yourself for the snake-oil salesman. Money won't mean anything if your child lives & it won't mean anything if your child dies.


I think you're right. I've struggled with the question trying to think of what the "principled" thing to do is, but there come some times - this being one - where principles and rationality don't matter. Doing everything you can means _everything_, and you're right that the money doesn't matter either way.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I think you're right. I've struggled with the question trying to think of what the "principled" thing to do is, but there come some times - this being one - where principles and rationality don't matter. Doing everything you can means _everything_, and you're right that the money doesn't matter either way.


Doesn't mean I don't despise & wish a long lingering death to these scum who sell false hope to vulnerable people though.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I also would take the medico up on his offer - with the understanding that if the child dies, there will be consequences.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

sospiro said:


> Doesn't mean I don't despise & wish a long lingering death to these scum who sell false hope to vulnerable people though.


Exactly. I think society as a whole should have things in place - laws, education in schools and doctor's surgeries - to prevent these vultures from preying on the vulnerable, but when you are the vulnerable yourself, it's completely understandable that you should do it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

sospiro said:


> Doesn't mean I don't despise & wish a long lingering death to these scum who sell false hope to vulnerable people though.


I have noticed the validity of the saying "Wishing doesn't make it so". One should be proactive.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

Without a doubt, you would spend your money
A parent would do "anything" to cling to hope


----------

