How do you know when to employ a principle of caution?

Question

There may be a better wording for this phrase "principle of caution". What I mean by it is the following: when a relationship is discovered between two or more phenomena, the conclusion that there truly is such a relationship as specified should be reserved pending further data and experiment.

The example I'll choose is medication, although many technological 'advances' will also suffice. I understand people dying of terminal diseases will assuage their doubts over the lack of proof behind a cure. But people suffering from garden variety depression seem not to have justification to take drugs with, not only known side effects, but possibly many unknown, yet, very life-threatning effects.

The fact that millions of people do, in my opinion, haphazardly take such medications as anti-depressants is the concern.

Common Sense leads people to take the drug, because the pharmaceutical company, the doctor, and many people thereafter also reccomend it, or endorse the safety of it. So it's not so simple.

And it's just the sort of thing that needs questioning because common sense says: you're sad, take the drug.

We may never have an absolutely definitive proof of the safety or use-value of new technology. So if we set the bar of caution too high, nothing will satisfy it. If common sense was this extreme form of caution -- then we'd all die of paralysis.

If the common sense operation is contextual, then it is both True that the medicator is right to take the anti-depressant, and from another context, which exists side-by-side, it is False that the medicator is right.

No, I am not depressed.

You can't just filter out what you call "an enormous amount of extraneous rhetoric" and expect to answer the same question. My wording may not be perfect, but it is clear and meaningful.

Granted, you want to say that anti-depressants are not, even clinically, administered as a cure-all for depression. So my example is wrong. Okay.

If I stay with the example-- Even though the 'clinical' prescription of anti-depressants has this grand caveat, it is still True that they are prescribed widely. And it is not just at the discretion of the ailing patient but the doctor who signs the slip, and the scientists that verify the experiments.

If I do away with the example-- let's talk about the rather innocuous treatment of DDT in the 50's. I've seen filmstrips of people smiling while demonstrating its putative safety. Or something even more mundane like driving an automobile down the highway.

Barring immanent death, how do we chose against the principle, Ever?

Answer 1

The self is pretty good at determining what is best for it.

If it makes a mistake it corrects itself.

Answer 2

It is hard to figure out exactly what your question is at this point as you have included an enormous amount of extraneous rhetoric. So after sorting through all this extra baggage I am assuming you are really wondering if you should take an antidepressant just because your doctor prescribed it even though you have seen alot of negative publicity about the possible adverse side effects. That being the case, allow me to clarify some things for you that I have learned through experience.

1. Antidepressants do not cure depression.

2. Antidepressants can temporarily interfere with the negative neurological events brought on by the depression therefore allowing you an opportunity to overcome the anti-productivness of depression and allow you to function in a somewhat normal fashion from day to day

3. Because depression is not just a symptom of a disease but is a condition that effects every aspect of your being, mental, physical and emotional, it is important to seek treatment on many levels. Medications when taken in conjuction with other forms of therapy (counseling, group therapy, diet , and exercise) can be extremely effective, however antidepressants should be taken with care and with medical supervision and only on a temporary basis.

4. The "principle of Caution" should always be exercised in every aspect of your life. The rule is: moderation in all things. However our modern society would rather medicate itself than deal with reality. A condition, I am afraid, that will not change anytime in the near future.

Answer 3

Highly intelligent people do not have common sense, I know a few of them they can't even understand a very simple joke, most of them only think about the profession that they are in, and that is all that is on their minds, it is so sad they are missing out so much of the good life the rest of us have. So open up your minds to the common sense people of their beautiful world.

Answer 4

Let's say you are blind walking down a path you have never traveled before(symbolizing our human mind and thought/chemical interaction). If you sit down and think, you may develop a way to walk the path, but you do not know if your going to hit a river or an ocean or a puddle. Sometimes the only/best way to discover the true path is to stumble through it and hope you do not walk off a cliff. Cancer is predictable, suicide is not nearly so much predictable.

Answer 5

It is not decided by you, it is decided only due to your circumstances created by society or company in which you are working or living, every type of principles are decided by your moral status which is created by your circumstances during the childhood. If you believe in God, do your best what is being given to do right now, without thinking about any result or gaining. Caution implementation not in your hand if you are talking about an individual.

Answer 6

Your answer is COMMON SENSE! Unfortunately though most people don't have much of that.

Answer 7

You feel it with your sixth sense.

Answer 8

Just as soon as you have had the first hunch...

Answer 9

how can i get adress this person? barbara anne

Answer 10

time for a HAPPY MEAL !!