8 ms·
> Why be so secretive? This is not a military mission. These missions cost a lot of taxpayer money (money well spend you may argue), but we deserve full transpa
by bryant 8mo ago
> Why be so secretive? This is not a military mission. These missions cost a lot of taxpayer money (money well spend you may argue), but we deserve full transparency.
We deserve as much transparency as we can get on the science we as taxpayers paid for, not full de-anonymization of the bodily happenings of living crew. There's certainly valuable science here, but the crew member doesn't have to be outed for it.
> You don't get to go to space on other people's money and expect privacy.
I don't think this is a healthy mindset, and there's a heck of a slippery slope with this argument. Would we apply this to companies receiving federal grants too? Contractors? Universities? Schools? That's a lot of people who'll lose medical privacy for something probably unrelated to their job, and there'll be a much smaller applicant pool for the jobs themselves if applicants are aware that their own internal issues might be disclosed when the public clamors for it.
> We might want to learn from what went wrong here.
Agree, NASA certainly will, and new science and engineering will come of it that we benefit from. But that doesn't have to involve breaching medical privacy and ethics.
- ryanmcgarvey 8mo agoThe full on dystopian take would be to require anyone receiving welfare or other public funds to fully disclose all of their private details. You want Medicaid? Tell everyone about your hemorrhoids first.
- kyleee 8mo agoMight actually be a net benefit and lead to de-stigmatizing human health conditions
- Aurornis 8mo agoYou go first, then. Let’s see your full medical records without redaction if you think it’s a net benefit. I think there's value in reducing stigma around health conditions, but forcing poor people to reveal their medical conditions to the world isn't it.
- quesera 8mo agoThis is not honestly engaging with GP's statement. The benefit only accrues if the sharing is universal. I am too private a person to agree with GP, but it does seem that most health issues that are visible to the passerby or casual acquaintence are less stigmatized than the ones that can be hidden. There might be something to the idea. Of course you'd have to agree that de-stigmatizing is more socially important than privacy. I guess I'm privileged enough to have no stigmas, secret or otherwise, that I consider more important than my privacy. But I know others are less fortunate.
- Aurornis 8mo ago> The benefit only accrues if the sharing is universal. The GP's statement wasn't for universal sharing. It was to force recipients of taxpayer money to share their medical records. It's a gross demand: Force poor and old people to reveal their medical conditions to the world.
- quesera 8mo agoGP did not specify that their thought was scoped to the same people as GGP's (explicitly dystopian) scenario, so I read their comment as working on the kernel of the idea and not the horrifying class-based discriminatory version. While I am still confident of that assessment, I'll grant you that "obvious" charitable interpretation is not as reliable as it should be. :-/
- kyleee 8mo agoI was taking about everyone, so you are over confidently incorrect.
- ben_w 8mo agoI'm genuinely fine sharing my medical history, but I don't know if my lack of shame about e.g. testicular torsion, or the way that I lost my notes for a bit and unnecessarily got repeats of vaccines I'd already had, are a sign of being in possession of a boring medical history, or an indication of an uncommonly diminished shame response. Whatever it is, I am aware that my lack of concern here is something which makes me different from normal people. I don't really get why people in general are ashamed of their medical histories, but I nevertheless absolutely do support everyone's right to keep such secrets, because there's a few specific cases where the medical history reveals something socially damaging either in the present or with a risk of it becoming so in the future, the obvious example of which is an abortion given the US seems to be facing a loss of freedom in this regard. (Perhaps most people have something socially damaging in their medical histories, and I've just not noticed because nobody says the thing?)
- 7thpower 8mo agoBy forcing the poorest to disclose their personal health issues?
- dole 8mo agoExposing STDs and mental conditions is part of what HIPAA’s for. Putting everyone in glass houses just creates a massive panopticon.
- marcinzm 8mo agoDoes that include those working for a company that gets tax breaks?
- poulpy123 8mo agoThe fun part is absolutely everyone is using stuff made with public funds at one point or another
- TitaRusell 8mo agoI remember watching a landing and the camera cut away when one of the returning astronauts got sick. These are human beings and employees not Big Brother contestants.