Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#41

Post by mjh2539 »

tialaramex wrote: post #34
mjh2539 wrote: post #23

I regularly see comments on YC about Signal-to-Noise ratio, and how YC votes are meant to distinguish the "signal" from the "noise", but in this case, it's clear that this isn't what they're being used for. They're being used to enforce a preconceived bias. Of the two comments that addressed the moral indignity of the treatment (that it requires the death (murder, in most cases) of an innocent human person for its su…

If your _opinion_ conflicts with reality then the resulting comments are likely to be useless noise and get filtered out. And that is probably going to feel unfair to you, but it's actually valuable information. HN readers find this unremarkable in many types of story. We don't find ourselves wondering if the comment "But five is an even number" for a number theory article might be signal that needs boosting, it's no…

How does my opinion conflict with reality? Which of these is "in conflict with reality"? 1. The human embryo is human (this is true by definition); 2. The human embryo is innocent; 3. The human embryo is alive; 4. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#42

Post by pinum »

etskinner wrote: post #30

>Both patients in the trial had "wet" age-related macular degeneration. This form of the disease is caused by abnormal blood vessels growing through the retinal pigment epithelium and damaging the macula. Dry age-related macular degeneration is more common and caused by the retinal pigment epithelium breaking down. If this is a viable treatment method, it would help only the minority of macular degeration patients.

>It is hoped the patch will be able to treat both forms of the disease.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#43

Post by tialaramex »

nsxwolf wrote: post #32
eganist wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/baby Embryo is not included in any standard definition of the word, so you may wish to reconsider your word choice. Or not. Your call.

"Human" is harder to dodge though.

Sure, we know that humans expect small pieces of human to be treated as irrelevant (e.g. you leave tiny skin particles and hairs basically everywhere and all you usually ask is that people vacuum them up to avoid the place being covered in dust) and that larger pieces (e.g. a toe, or in this case an embryo) should be treated with extra care and consideration of people's emotional reaction.

But it's not kidnapping if you keep someone's toenail clippings. It's creepy, but it's not kidnapping. It's not murder when the barber sweeps all the hair into a furnace, it's called tidying up.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#44

Post by wongarsu »

telchar wrote: post #26
mjh2539 wrote: post #23

I regularly see comments on YC about Signal-to-Noise ratio, and how YC votes are meant to distinguish the "signal" from the "noise", but in this case, it's clear that this isn't what they're being used for. They're being used to enforce a preconceived bias. Of the two comments that addressed the moral indignity of the treatment (that it requires the death (murder, in most cases) of an innocent human person for its su…

Misleading comment. You're talking about murder but this only involved embryos. Many/most people don't consider that murder any more than the spilling of seed is. If you want to push a political view don't couch it as a systemic complaint.

Killing embryos is more akin to abortion (before the 12th week, that's pretty much the definition of abortion). The topic of abortion is still widely debated (especially in the US), and your comment isn't doing it any more justice than your parent comment.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#45

Post by vlan0 »

mjh2539 wrote: post #41
tialaramex wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your _opinion_ conflicts with reality then the resulting comments are likely to be useless noise and get filtered out. And that is probably going to feel unfair to you, but it's actually valuable information. HN readers find this unremarkable in many types of story. We don't find ourselves wondering if the comment "But five is an even number" for a number theory article might be signal that needs boosting, it's no…

How does my opinion conflict with reality? Which of these is "in conflict with reality"? 1. The human embryo is human (this is true by definition); 2. The human embryo is innocent; 3. The human embryo is alive; 4. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life.

Super off topic....

Do you also feel the same about murder of other sentient beings?

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#46

Post by darkarmani »

philbarr wrote: post #18
epmaybe wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article, 29- and 21- letters improvement in visual acuity. I believe this means at least 4-6 rows improvement from the chart you read off of. Think about that for a second. Nearly blind, or actually blind, to being able to read again. I'm seriously debating specializing in ophthalmology, and sub-specializing in retina surgery just became an even more appealing career plan for me.

helping people be able to see again? sounds like a definition of "job satisfaction"

> sounds like a definition of "job satisfaction"

Depends if you like dealing with people, right?

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#47

Post by Filligree »

mjh2539 wrote: post #37
Tharkun wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moral indignity? Murder? Person? It looks like we have vastly different definitions of each of these words. Scaremongering with no basis in reality is closer to noise than it is to signal.

Watch out, I'm about to "scaremonger": 1. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent, human life. 2. Embryos are innocent, human, and alive. 3. Intentionally killing an embryo is murder. What are you definitions for "murder" or "embryo"? How exactly is any of this "not based in reality"? Please engage with me on a rational level. Give definitions. Give an argument. This is what I'm trying to do. I'm not: a: usi…

I'd contend that (a) it's still murder even if the victim isn't innocent, and (b) embryos aren't human.

Especially the sort of early-stage embryo used here. There wouldn't be even a hint of a brain.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#48

Post by glibgil »

chapill wrote: post #16
jackhack wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is important because, for some, the moral dilemma would preclude this treatment.

It's also important because a baby was killed to give a rich old guy a few more years of sight. A whole new underclass of children worthy of murdering for medical treatment arises.

An embryo is not a baby. Babies form in uteruses. Embryos ride on tampons to the trash more often than they latch unto uteruses

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#49

Post by glibgil »

ars wrote: post #36
chapill wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also important because a baby was killed to give a rich old guy a few more years of sight. A whole new underclass of children worthy of murdering for medical treatment arises.

It's not a child. Even if you want to use a broad definition of child (and I do), this cell was not implanted in a women, and could not grow. It's one thing to take positive action to stop a child from living (abortion). It's quite another to simply do nothing. This type of stem cell research is done from cells that would otherwise be thrown out - you have not prevented a child from living.

> It's one thing to take positive action to stop a child from living (abortion)

Until someone creates a fetal transplant procedure it’s really not. You can’t make someone host a baby they don’t want

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#50

Post by bildung »

mjh2539 wrote: post #37
Tharkun wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moral indignity? Murder? Person? It looks like we have vastly different definitions of each of these words. Scaremongering with no basis in reality is closer to noise than it is to signal.

Watch out, I'm about to "scaremonger": 1. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent, human life. 2. Embryos are innocent, human, and alive. 3. Intentionally killing an embryo is murder. What are you definitions for "murder" or "embryo"? How exactly is any of this "not based in reality"? Please engage with me on a rational level. Give definitions. Give an argument. This is what I'm trying to do. I'm not: a: usi…

By that definition the usage of condoms is murder, too, as their usage means intentionally killing ovocytes, which are innocent, human, and alive.

But it doesn't stop there! Following that logic, not getting every single fertile girl and woman forcibly pregrant every 28 days is murder, too! Otherwise, all those ovocytes will die.

Somewhere in the syllogism you postulated has to be a logical flaw.

Post reply on HN