I’m sure this has been written on extensively, but I’m not aware of the conclusions. Is it considered unethical to do medical experiments on yourself without any oversight like you would find in a typical human subject trial?
It is considered not definitive, given the sample size of 1, confirmation bias, amped-up placebo effect, lack of oversight, conflict of interest when the patient is the investigator… but you’re usually allowed to do what you want with your own body.
> Is it considered unethical to do medical experiments on yourself without any oversight like you would find in a typical human subject trial?
Note there are different contexts at play here. When someone says "ethics" in a scientific context, it may encompass scientific integrity, avoidance of questionable research practices, reproducibility, etc., as well as medical and moral ethics. The speaker may not even be fully aware of these distinctions, since the subject is often taught with a rule-based perspective.
Experimentation on oneself is often _scientifically_ unethical (i.e., when done with the intent to make a scientific discovery) because:
1. The result is often too contaminated by experimental integrity issues to have scientific value. As another comment in this thread notes: "sample size of 1, confirmation bias, amped-up placebo effect, lack of oversight, conflict of interest when the patient is the investigator". Lack of oversight means no one is checking the validity of your work, it's not a permission thing. Every issue that is blamed for the so-called reproducibility crisis is worse.
2. Due to publication pressure, abandoning the cultural prohibition against self-experimentation amounts to pressuring everyone to self-experiment to grow their CV by a few quick N = 1 studies, or do something risky when their career flags. Obviously, oversight to ensure that self-experimentation proceeds only in cases of terminal disease mitigates this concern.
In practice, journal editors currently provide oversight addressing point #2, which is why work like what we're discussing here still gets published. See also Karen Wetterhahn's valuable documentation of her (accidental) dimethylmercury poisoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn).
Experimentation on oneself in an attempt to cure your own illness by any means at your disposal, provided you do not harm others, is not _morally_ unethical IMO. It just rarely has a scientific role.
You can do whatever you want to yourself. You can't hurt/encourage others, and the data may be no good, but certainly you have informed consent if you're the only subject
That's not actually true though is it, suicide is illegal in many jurisdictions. Not just self- euthanisation towards the end of life anyway (which is more controversial/media-discussed) but any form.
The context of that comment is a parent comment asking about medical self experimentation. You're also not allowed to administer scheduled substances to yourself in many jurisdictions and plenty of other things like that but that's not what I was replying to.
To give the authorities a reason to intervene. Which in turn is justified by most people who fail to commit suicide being happy, in retrospect, that they failed.
There's probably also a crowd who want it to be illegal because they view suicide as a sin, though personally I think that justification for a law seems like a violation of religious freedoms.
> Which in turn is justified by most people who fail to commit suicide being happy, in retrospect, that they failed.
If true, that sounds like survivorship bias (literally). Those who aren't happy about the failure will just try again and won't be counted in the statistics.
I'm pro-choice, but I think that it's not an unreasonable stance if you believe that the fetus is an alive human being with intrinsic worth, or a soul. (Souls aren't real, but
>75% of Americans believe in them.)
None of that is a refutation of what I said though, since I reject the notion that belief in the existence of the soul can be used as justification for stripping a person of their bodily autonomy.
If we found out cancer cells had souls tomorrow, exactly no one would be screaming “but their souls!” at folks walking into a cancer clinic.
„The problem is not that Halassy used self-experimentation as such, but that publishing her results could encourage others to reject conventional treatment and try something similar, says Sherkow.”
I don't think it's a good ground to rejected observational data. If you want the published data to be less biased you should introduce as little arbitrary (not connected to the quality of data itself) barriers as possible.
This is bullshit, especally since she also got "traditional" therapy after. This is just a statement by someone that is desperately looking for a negative point. You have to have access to equipment and skills that not many people have. And then if they have it, that's one more thing to try, the effects are quick if it works and you can revert to radio/chemo therapy if needed.
> This is just a statement by someone that is desperately looking for a negative point
No it isn't.
This is an expert explaining why journals have ethical concerns publishing the paper and why those concerns matter.
>> “I think it ultimately does fall within the line of being ethical, but it isn’t a slam-dunk case,” says Sherkow, adding that he would have liked to see a commentary fleshing out the ethics perspective, published alongside the case report.
