![]() |
|
| The Debate Forums | Blogs | | | Donate | Register (it's free) | Chatroom | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||||
|
| | Thread Tools |
| | #1 (permalink) (top) |
| Molten Ash Posts: 82 | Risk How do you decide what is an acceptable level of risk? If you were about to have an operation and there was a 1 in 100000 chance of death, would you have it? What about 1 in 10000, 1 in 1000, 1 in 100 etc. Do these numbers actually mean anything to us? |
| | |
| | #4 (permalink) (top) |
| Cause for Concern Location: Planet Earth Posts: 664 | Its hard to apply these numbers to an actual situation. Dont boggle up the main arguement about wether or not some solutions are better than the problem. Isa14:21Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers. Deu24:16The fathers shall not be put to death for the children,neither shall the kids be put to death for the fathers. |
| | |
| | #5 (permalink) (top) |
| Moral Turnip Location: Oregon, US Posts: 2,283 | Best board game EVER! Oh, wait, sorry. Wrong topic. :) It's not about a simple numeric value; it's about the risks on either side. I'll take the smaller risk, whatever it is: if the surgery might kill me, but what it's fixing has a higher chance of killing me, I'll take the surgery. If the surgery might kill me but the condition won't, I won't have the surgery. The only gray area here is quality of life. "Would you like some pie, Dr. Stark?" "Science is my pie. Curiosity, my sweet tooth. Knowledge is my candy." |
| | |
| | #6 (permalink) (top) | |
| moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184 | Quote:
it really isn't risk, it's the appetite for risk - something that can't be quantified. the grey areas differ for everyone.. | |
| | |
| | #8 (permalink) (top) |
| mostly harmless Location: USA Posts: 1,284 | I wouldn't partake in a nonessential operation even if there was 0% risk of death, but I'd gladly partake in a nonessential ski trip even after hearing that 50 people have died in avalanches and accidents the same year. |
| | |