Would this be ethical?

[SEXY-FETUS]

Well an idea popped in my head after hearing of yet another drunk driver death. Would it be possible and ethical to make a known alcoholic who's killed someone driving drunk deathly allergic to alcohol? Same for any other substance you can think of. I've known plenty of people who have court orders saying they can't drink, so it is possible to tell someone they can't, but could you go as far as forcing it in such a way?

[ReiperX]

Wouldn't both me one bit. Is it Ethical, depends on your point of view.

[ScaryDeadGirl]

At 9/21/05 03:49 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: Well an idea popped in my head after hearing of yet another drunk driver death. Would it be possible and ethical to make a known alcoholic who's killed someone driving drunk deathly allergic to alcohol? Same for any other substance you can think of. I've known plenty of people who have court orders saying they can't drink, so it is possible to tell someone they can't, but could you go as far as forcing it in such a way?

There is a drug you can take that causes one to have a violent response to alcohol, but it's not a required substance. People in AA take it only if they choose to.

[StarvedIntelligence]

Not if you believe in freedom of choice

[Jimsween]

Geeze... It's hard for me not to be in favor of that. I'm usually very much a liberatarian but I mean... hmm... I'll have to think about that one.

[RedSkunk]

Ethical? Depends on your code of ethics (dur). Possible? No.

[V4lh4ll4]

I doubt many would say thats ethical, but I would say that would make for some quality entertainment if someone were medicated in such a fashion and didn't know.

[MalcheiorSveth]

I would have to say it is ethical. They have infringed on the rights of others, so this stops them from doing it again.

[Elfer]

Alcohol would be a tricky one because alcohol is very useful for sterilizing things, and making someone allergic to alcohol would have some fucked up consequences.

[DamienK]

I'd have to say it wouldn't be ethical, purely because we've all seen that concept at its worst: Clockwork Orange. The man is violent, so his punishment is an "allergy" to violence. Sure his crimes need punishing, but the end result is frightening. Sure this is to a much larger extreme than alchohol prohibition, but I think it would follow the same code of ethics. The government doesn't/shouldn't have the right to alter a person's desire.

That aside, I like your thinking. Drunk driving is a pet peeve of mine and I do think the government should do more about it, but probably not as much as your suggesting.

[noPOTSI]

it would be ethical if they had a court order saying they couldn't, so if you just gave them something that HELPED them follow out that court order that would be perfectly fine..... but its still a mean thign to do to all the poor alcoholics. but they killed some one so i say go for it.......

[caseyo]

Maybe you should just take the car, or the person(or family) could decide for themselves.

[therealsylvos]

i think its a good idea but it just doesnt seem ethical i mean its bad too the excess but then so is everything. im not going with any logic here it just feels wrong

[DamienK]

Well has there ever been an occurance where a drunk driver has killed, and then killed a second time? Because I think the guilt would be sobering enough. Either that or its a cause to drink more, I dunno I'm just pondering aloud.

[madzakk]

At 9/21/05 03:49 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: Well an idea popped in my head after hearing of yet another drunk driver death. Would it be possible and ethical to make a known alcoholic who's killed someone driving drunk deathly allergic to alcohol? Same for any other substance you can think of. I've known plenty of people who have court orders saying they can't drink, so it is possible to tell someone they can't, but could you go as far as forcing it in such a way?

Is it any worse to throw him in prison where he might catch AIDS from being sodomized by an infected convict?

[Empanado]

At 9/22/05 02:53 AM, madzakk wrote: Is it any worse to throw him in prison where he might catch AIDS from being sodomized by an infected convict?

No, because in-mates use protection.
I mean, DUH, everyone knows that.

Anyways. I wouldn't deadly allergical, but to make him intolerant to some degree may be a good measure. Then again, it'd be expensive as shit, so I don't think it's gonna be feasible in a LONG time.

[Solthiel]

I'm thinking we may want to try out making it illegal for them to purchase it first...

[madzakk]

At 9/22/05 04:35 AM, Empanado wrote:

No, because in-mates use protection.
I mean, DUH, everyone knows that.

The only protection that I know inmates have is being in a gang.

Anyways. I wouldn't deadly allergical, but to make him intolerant to some degree may be a good measure. Then again, it'd be expensive as shit, so I don't think it's gonna be feasible in a LONG time.

There is a pill called Anabuse (Disulfram) It makes drinking an unpleasant experience.

[CathaI]

I live in Ireland (Need I say more about our HUGE drinking problem?) so, yeah, I`d be with that. God knows its time this country got rid of its image of a nation of drunks.

[bcdemon]

Getting drunk isn't the problem, driving while drunk is the problem. Make it law that any convicted drunk driver must install, or pay for the government installation of an Automobile alcohol immobilizer. Where you have to blow into a breathalizer before your car will start.
Check out Saabs "Alcokey" idea.

This way, you can still get drunk, but can't drive your car. Now lets say you borrow a friends a car and get caught driving while drunk, then the cops just confiscate your own vehicle, and sell it at auction to pay for immobilizer device.

[MasterBlaster500]

At 9/21/05 03:49 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote:

Same for any other substance you can think of. I've known plenty of people who have court orders saying they can't drink, so it is possible to tell someone they can't, but could you go as far as forcing it in such a way?

They already have something like that, it's called 'Antabuse'.

[Gunter45]

I think it's unethical. At least on the first offense. I think that there would have to be evidence to support the inability of the defendant to control their drinking. I have no problems if something like this was ordered for a repeat-offender, they obviously have little to no control over their drinking and the State has a compelling interest in keeping them sober.

[TheDoctor]

To the extent that alcohol is fatal? Most certainly not.
If it induced vomiting or something then I can see the logic, I always favour rehabilitation over punishment myself though.

[JoS]

Deadly allergic, no. Even allergic has consequences, since as pointed out alcohol is used for things like sterilaztion, as well most cough syurps, many mouth washes and a host of other regular products. Besides, I would also worry about cross reactions (ie alcohol allergy causing reatcions to other substances, for example people who are allergic to ASA may also be allergic to other pain medications like ibprofun).

[punisher19848]

At 9/21/05 03:49 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: Well an idea popped in my head after hearing of yet another drunk driver death. Would it be possible and ethical to make a known alcoholic who's killed someone driving drunk deathly allergic to alcohol? Same for any other substance you can think of. I've known plenty of people who have court orders saying they can't drink, so it is possible to tell someone they can't, but could you go as far as forcing it in such a way?

I don't know iof it would be ethical (not that I care about ethics, mind you), but it would be highly effective at preventing anyone fromever driving dtunk again. My philosophy is if it works, use it!