Re: Ethics, abortions, and VA research

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

Jim,

The crux of your argument seems to be that the LNT model is "unreasonable."
 You augment this assertion by impugning the motives of those advancing the
model.  Again, I must insist that the accuracy of the model is NOT the
center of the ETHICAL debate.  Even questions about motives are NOT
central.  Motives might be important to personal morals (i.e. are they good
people), but they do not address questions of social responsibility.

There might be an ethical question here if the ICRP had clear reason to
believe (not just a suspicion) that the content of their reports would lead
people to take these actions.  However, the ICRP cannot be held responsible
for actions taken that are clearly contrary to plain statements in their
reports.  The ICRP has NOT recommended therapeutic abortion for millirem
exposures.  The numerical risk from millirem exposure would not rationally
justify such a procedure.  People did not follow ICRP recommendations, but
rather responded emotionally to their subjective perceptioons of radiation
risks.  I dare say that even if the ICRP had flatly stated that there is a
threshold for radiation effects, the number of abortions would be
substantially unchanged.

An analogy might be useful here.  Suppose a doctor told a patient to lose
some weight and get some exercise, emphasizing the consequence of obesity
and lethargy.  The patient took these recommendations to unreasonable
extremes, quitting their job to exercise full time and eating only minimal
amounts.  I submit that very few people would hold the doctor to be
unethical in this case.  But that's precisely what you are doing by laying
radiophobic abortions at the feet of the ICRP.


Regards,
Dave scherer