[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:
The concept that every individual should be allowed to make his own risk versus
benefit decision, even if it violates accepted standards (i.e., the regulations) is
questionable, at best. I doubt that the daughter could truly make an informed risk
versus benefit decision, especially under those emotional circumstances.
This reminds me of my experience at a previous employer. I inspected a scientist's
lab, finding numerous problems. When I reviewed them with the scientist, he stated
that he would accept full responsibility if anything went wrong, and in the meantime,
he did not want to hear from me.
Shortly after that conversation, he did something that was truly stupid, even by his
standards, causing a serious accident. He then sued the employer for making him work
under such dangerous conditions!
I think you'd have the same experience if you allowed members of the public to give
their "informed" consent for exceeding established dose limits.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Steven Dapra wrote:
> May 14
>
> Jerry Cohen wrote:
>
> "It seems to me that the comfort, warmth, and satisfaction of being near a
> dying loved one without the encumbrance of shielding might be well worth
> an added 3-15 rem. In any case, why shouldn't the dose recipient [a
> daughter] be allowed to make an informed choice in the matter without NRC
> interference?"
>
> A good, hearty AMEN to that. It's a woman's right to choose, isn't it?
>
> Steven Dapra
> sjd@swcp.com
>
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/