[DantesKite]

It’s interesting comparing the comments here to Twitter where there’s been a lot of discussion about the ethics of this (as in she shouldn’t have done this for some ethical reason that is never quite elucidated in detail, other than it’s wrong to do).

In contrast, many comments here are talking about the ethics of not having this approach more broadly available, which is fairly optimistic for Hacker News.

Or maybe it’s just that a subsection of bio-ethicists on Twitter have oddly shaped moral values.

[alphazard]

Twitter has the full gambit of ideologies, and the ethical models that those precommit a person to. It's amusing to watch the mental gymnastics required to come down against the common sense view that no one was negatively affected by her actions, and she personally benefited, and so it must be okay.

I think rational consequentialism is a common stance here on HN. e.g. I would be better off having access to this treatment (on my own terms of course), and other people having access to it would not negatively affect me, so I'm in favor.

[khafra]

The most prominent bioethicist tweet, from @Strangviruslab, has over twice as many QT's as likes. It's among the biggest pile-ons I've ever seen on twitter.