A no-brainer?

Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 5:54pm on 25 Apr 2009, Anne P. wrote:

  It's only a couple of years since a friend tried to donate her husband's brain and was told no-one was interested. So someone certainly needs to sort out a proper system.

  Complain about this comment

• 2. At 10:04pm on 25 Apr 2009, Dr_Bee wrote:

  I'd be willing to donate mine now as long as I can swap for one that works :D I'm one of those lucky people with MS so I'd do anything that might help avoid the consequences of that illness for others.

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 10:15pm on 25 Apr 2009, QuaffedTheRaven wrote:

  It's a shame the charities Prof. Esiri mentioned don't have the resources to publicise their brain banks properly...I just spent a fruitless 10 minutes searching for someone to give my brain to. I guess a central "Brain Bank" would come in handy with that aspect of it.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 10:47pm on 25 Apr 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

  You see, I have a problem with all this.
  
  Some of the most insightful and artistic people have and do suffer from 'conditions', such as, schizophrenia, Bi Polar and Autism.
  
  Indeed some of those same individuals would point to the fact that they would not have been gifted in the way they were but for their condition.
  
  If we want to find a genetic way to get rid of such people in the future, I am dead against it. I think I would need more explanation from the professor about the real purpose of her work.
  
  Sounds a bit close to eugenics to me.

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 00:28am on 26 Apr 2009, Richard_SM wrote:

  
  I'd be happy to donate my brain - but who gets the intellectual rights? I wondered if my children might be entitled to some sort of royalty payment.
  
  And what about Data Protection ?

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 08:46am on 26 Apr 2009, ajohnson2009 wrote:

  This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

• 7. At 5:52pm on 26 Apr 2009, Dr_Bee wrote:

  @4 Totally agree with what you are saying - there are some serious ethical issues surrounding the 'genetic elimination' of people who have some of these conditions.
  Nevertheless, there are still a number of conditions that are very unpleasant for those who have them (and for their relatives & loved ones) and where I find it hard to see any argument against trying to at least understand those diseases better so that more effective treatments and / or eradication can become more likely! My experience of living with MS is that it doesn't add to my abilities in any way at all (ok - I can sleep for Britain nowadays :D) - and having seen people whom I care about succumb to the awful effects of Alzheimers I can't see why anyone would object to understanding and treating that better too.

  Complain about this comment

• 8. At 11:13pm on 27 Apr 2009, funnyJoedunn wrote:

  Dr Bee (7)
  
  I agree with what you say. However, The professor in this research program specifically wanted to address Autism. She also said that she should get help from other brain banks to do this.
  
  Is Autism a condition that attacks the nervous system like the conditions you cite? When we talk about 'more effective treatments', does this also include genetic eradication of such conditions?
  
  It needs to be remembered that conditions such as Autism exist on a sliding scale. There are those who have this condition who do not see it as a disability in the classical sense. And, of course being a savant is a type of autism. Many people see themselves (as do their families) as a blessing rather than a curse.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 9. At 8:31pm on 16 May 2009, Bloofs wrote:

  Is 'no-brainer' an Americanism? It doesn't seem to make much sense as a phrase, and seems curiously alien to me whenerver I read or hear it, along with 'natch', 'fanboy' and 'rain check'.

  Complain about this comment

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS