1% versus 99%

Daily Question:

If a new medicine were developed that would cure arthritis but cause a fatal reaction in 1% of those who took it, would you want it to be released to the public?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(If your just tuning in - this is question #5 of The Book of Questions

written by Gregory Stock, PH.D)

Well I think it is important to mention that arthritis is not a condition to be taken lightly. It may seem to some that arthritis can be uncomfortable and causes aches & pains but, not life threatening. It can be and has taken the life of my bestfriends mother, Teresa at a young age.

I would never wish this decision to be one I must choose but, for the sake of answering all questions - I say yes.

Yes, I would release it even if it meant taking the life of 1% of the patients. My reasoning is that 99% would be spared a lifetime of pain and debilitating ailments and potentially their lives. Under one condition would I release this medicine to the public, that all 100% of participants knew that 1% of the patients would not be on the surviving end of this deal. As harsh as that sounds, 1% would most likely lose the battle on their own and 99% would be spared.

I often wonder, if this question is just hypothetical or if the "cure" to arthritis and other life threatening diseases have in fact been found. I do believe the money is in the medicine and not in the cure. As sad as that is, I do believe there are cure alls to the cancers and other terminal diseases. What if we were given the cure. What would that do to natural selection and the population count. If in fact the cure(s) do exists, are there stipulations such as this proposed question: Cancer will be cured but, x% will not survive.

Would we want to play God and pick in choose which percentage survives or dies?

Tasha