= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
aelephant comments on Biohacking in New York, Cybernetics and first Cyborg Hate Crime: theverge.com - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (47)
Off-topic, but why is it illegal to use anesthetic?
Aside from running the risk of hurting yourself, you can mess up - real bad, first of a lot of local anesthetics usually contain a cocktail of the anesthetic agent and adrenalin(epinephrine), adrenalin is useful because it induces contraction of the blood vesicles at high concentrations that results in more precise anesthetics, you require a lower dose as well as the prolongs the effect. Though if one uses this cocktail at an end-artery fingers, toes, penis etc. you risk cutting the blood flow to that part of your body, this can result in tissue damage even necrosis (cell death). If you by mistake inject a local anesthesia into an artery/vein there can be rather adverse effects as well.
You can hurt yourself any number of ways that are completely legal.
The argument "X should be illegal because it can be dangerous" doesn't work for me.
If you don't want to get into the political discussion my statement is drawing us into, I totally understand.
I'm confused because Wix responded to a question of the form "Why is X illegal" with an answer of the form "X is illegal because Y", and you seemed to respond as if they had said "X should be illegal because Y".
I'm not sure if it was a good idea to point this out.
You're right. He didn't make the argument "X should be illegal because Y" but the fact that "X is illegal because Y" raises the question, at least to me, should it be so? Is it rational?
Fair enough. On-topic, I feel the most relevant fact is how many people would get hurt if anesthesia were legal.
If that's the downside of Anesthesia being legal, you need to also weigh the benefits on the scale. I imagine it would probably be much cheaper & easier to get, therefore it would be more widely used and many more people could avoid pain if they wanted to.
Good point; I agree that the expected benefit is an equally relevant fact.
I really genuinely love that this is a community where exchanges like this can occur, and everyone can get back to the discussion immediately with no hard feelings. Upvoted both for a well-handled misunderstanding.
I don't have have a strong opinion about it, but I guess often times there are regulation on things that "can be used for X (which is desirable) , but can easily result in Y (which is dangerous) with out proper training/preparation." take, driving for example. Another more cynical explanation is that the law protects the interest of the medical practitioners e.i. earmark procedures such as stitching, for their benefit.
Cocaine seems to avoid much of these problems when used as a local anesthetic but its also hard to acquire in pure form in the US
Well, cocaine is a vasoconstrictor in it's own right, that is it mediates the effect of adrenaline and the anesthetic, so you'll still have problems with end arteries. Though I guess injecting into a artery/vein, would have rather pleasant "side effects".
I think part of the reason is that the people who are really into body modification right now aren't strongly interested in anesthetic, and so haven't really fought for it.
The pain is part of it; it creates a full-body euphoria that lasts for several days; it's extraordinarily addictive. I can speak to that from personal experience.
This makes some sense to me. In many cultures body modification (piercing, tattooing, etc.) are part of "coming of age" rituals. The pain is an essential aspect. It helps to make it a more memorable experience.
In fact, I suspect the point of the rituals is to demonstrate that you can handle pain and be left with a hard to forge signal of this fact.
Great point. It could even be both. :)
So, an action by itself is not assault, but if you do the same action but make sure it doesn't hurt the patient, it is assault?
Well, some people are unwise enough to visit psychics, shamans and witch doctors instead of actual medicine doctors; I guess this law is supposed to make life harder for self-trained surgeon wannabes.
It seems likely to me that assault isn't involved in this at all, it's just illegal to buy or administer anesthetics without a medical license.
Why is it illegal to buy or administer anesthetics without a medical license? Just defending the monopoly or is there some legitimate reason?
It's not, strictly speaking. I can buy OTC anesthetics myself; lidocaine is in many sunburn creams, for example, and I can apply them to somebody without a medical license.
However, the anesthetics which are used during major surgery are (as far as I know, all) controlled substances, on account of their narcotic properties.
I think you are confusing Anesthetics and Narcotics / Opioids. Like you said, Lidocaine is an anesthetic and in some formulations it is available OTC. As far as I know the injectible form is Prescription only, but there is a difference between being Prescription only & being a Controlled substance (like Morphine, for instance).