Earth question - Shaver socket

[JohnW2]

As I've said, to base anything on the fact that it was not known whether or not Black blood was inherently different from White blood, then the 'sense' (belief) of the White Southerners that it might be different would, as I said, seeming being a rational possibility to consider.

However, if, as the material you quoted says, they had that belief only in relation to 'Black blood' but not to blood from members of other non-White' ethnic groups, then I agree that would be totally irrational and, as such, one could argue 'not justified'.

However, you really need my Philosophically-educated daughter on this one, since one has to wonder to what extent a 'pragmatic' (utilitarian) approach would be justified in that situation. If the fears of the Red Cross were correct, that the supply of blood for transfusion would be compromised if they accepted Black donors, then I imagine a Utilitarian might argue that the 'better good' of saving more lives (of people of any ethnic groups) outweighed the moral/ethical undesirability of 'discriminating against' one or more ethnic groups?

 

[SUNRAY]

Yes, that's far from impossible - but, as I wrote, simpler than that is the possibility that they survived the first test simply because they were an individual whose 'threshold for harm'(in terms of the outcome of electric shocks) was pretty high - in which case it's quite possible that they would survive a second test for that same reason, even if it were theoretically 'more risky' (i.e. first test with an RCD, second without).
...

Except there is some consensus that subsequentelectric shocks have an increasing hazardoud effect on the body, if that is correct then one shock without RCD may occur with no apparent lasting effect but a following lesser shock with RCD could kill.

 

[JohnW2]

Except there is some consensus that subsequentelectric shocks have an increasing hazardoud effect on the body,

I must say that I am not aware of that 'consensus'. What you describe can only really happen if the earlier shock(s) do lasting harm to the heart - and, to the best of my knowledge, and in my experience, that very rarely happens. [I assume that you're not thinking of a series of multiple shocks in very quick succession, which would be a rather different matter]

if that is correct then one shock without RCD may occur with no apparent lasting effect but a following lesser shock with RCD could kill.

Yes, if it were correct, that would be true - but, as above, I'm not at all sure about the premise!

 

[SUNRAY]

I must say that I am not aware of that 'consensus'. What you describe can only really happen if the earlier shock(s) do lasting harm to the heart - and, to the best of my knowledge, and in my experience, that very rarely happens. [I assume that you're not thinking of a series of multiple shocks in very quick succession, which would be a rather different matter]

No

Yes, if it were correct, that would be true - but, as above, I'm not at all sure about the premise!

I'm not convinced either but the suggestions are definitely out there

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not convinced either but the suggestions are definitely out there

Well, for a start, there's a big difference between 'suggestions' and 'a consensus' In almost all contexts, one will find a few people making all sorts of 'suggestions' (sometimes including 'unfounded', sometimes even crazy, ones ), but not suggestions about which there would be anything remotely like a 'consensus'.

Do you have any idea where I might find some of these suggestions?

 

[SUNRAY]

Well, for a start, there's a big difference between 'suggestions' and 'a consensus' In almost all contexts, one will find a few people making all sorts of 'suggestions' (sometimes including 'unfounded', sometimes even crazy, ones ), but not suggestions about which there would be anything remotely like a 'consensus'.

Do you have any idea where I might find some of these suggestions?

Quite honestly no specific reference.
It's one of those things that has been referred to on a number of occasions in various situations: First aid course and a Tv documentry, primarily about the harmfull effects of mobile phones RF which went on to include μwave ovens etc being the only 2 I can actually point a finger to.

 

[ebee]

I'm not sure what sort of situations you're thinking of but, in general, "doing the right thing" is obviously a good idea, certainly better than "not doing the right thing" or, even worse, "doing the wrong thing" - and I think that all remains true regardless of the 'reasons'for doing whatever is (or isn't)done, doesn't it?

I was simply pointing out that for example the taking or not taking of blood for purely racial reasons - white folk do not accept blacks blood because they believe the black man to be inferior - I see that as wrong ethically.
However, if it coincidentally turns out to be the case that there might indded be some problems to guard against for any medical reason then we might have done the right thing (to some degree) by accident.
Some inventions and ideas have turned out to actually have made a step or two that actually makes sense now we know wht we now know yet did not know or have any inkling at the time.
Might qualify as a serendipity even.

 

[JohnW2]

I was simply pointing out that for example the taking or not taking of blood for purely racial reasons - white folk do not accept blacks blood because they believe the black man to be inferior - I see that as wrong ethically. .... However, if it coincidentally turns out to be the case that there might indded be some problems to guard against for any medical reason then we might have done the right thing (to some degree) by accident.

Oh, I see. Yes, that's true, and it is in some senses akin to what I was saying about what I think is essentially a Utilitarian viewpoint. ...

If the 'underlying problem' is that at least some of the population (potential blood donors) have (irrational and ethically unacceptable) 'racist' views about 'Black blood', and if the Red Cross were right in believing that, as a result of that, the availability of blood for transfusion (for patients of any ethnicity) would be compromised if they accepted Black donors, then the 'greater good' (more lives saved) would result from not accepting Black blood, even though that was true only because of the (ethically unacceptable) 'racist' views of the White masses. ... so, a 'good outcome' caused by a 'bad reason'.

Some inventions and ideas have turned out to actually have made a step or two that actually makes sense now we know wht we now know yet did not know or have any inkling at the time.

Very much so. Ever since the 'year dot', almost everything the human race has learned started life as 'empirical' (discovered by 'trial and error' or 'accident'), long before there was any understanding of the "why" and "how" about what they had discovered.

To cite just one example ... the navy discovered ('empirically') that eating citrus fruit prevented their sailors getting scurvy. At the time,it was assumed that this was because of the citric acid in the fruit and it was only very much later that Vitamin C was discovered and found to be what was preventing the scurvy - so, the right result for the wrong perceived reason - but pragmatically fine!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Quite honestly no specific reference. It's one of those things that has been referred to on a number of occasions in various situations:

Fair enough.

First aid course and a Tv documentry, primarily about the harmfull effects of mobile phones RF which went on to include μwave ovens etc being the only 2 I can actually point a finger to.

Well, for a start, any possible 'hazards' associated with either mobile phones or microwave oven obviously have nothing to do with 'electric shocks' in the sense we are talking about and, in any event, I don't think there's anything approaching a consensus as to whether or not either of them can do any harm at all. Furthermore, in both cases, any potential issue relates to extensive exposure over long periods of time - not one or three 'events' which each last for no more than a few seconds at most.

However, a sufficiently severe electric shock (high current for appreciable time, usually resulting in severe burns) can (potentially permanently) damage any organ or tissue in the body. That certainly includes the heart, but also may involve things like brain, liver, kidneys, muscles, nerves and blood vessels. If the heart is damaged then that could indeed increase susceptibility to subsequent electric shocks - but, in terms of the big picture of electric shocks, I think that such 'serious' ones are very rare, and that by far the majority of shocks do not result in significant lasting damage to anything. Even the ones which kill would probably not usually have been followed by any lasting harm had the person survived.

 

[SUNRAY]

Fair enough.

Well, for a start, any possible 'hazards' associated with either mobile phones or microwave oven obviously have nothing to do with 'electric shocks' in the sense we are talking about and, in any event, I don't think there's anything approaching a consensus as to whether or not either of them can do any harm at all. Furthermore, in both cases, any potential issue relates to extensive exposure over long periods of time - not one or three 'events' which each last for no more than a few seconds at most.

Totally agree

However, a sufficiently severe electric shock (high current for appreciable time, usually resulting in severe burns) can (potentially permanently) damage any organ or tissue in the body. That certainly includes the heart, but also may involve things like brain, liver, kidneys, muscles, nerves and blood vessels. If the heart is damaged then that could indeed increase susceptibility to subsequent electric shocks -

Yes I generally agree

This is the part I don't know

but, in terms of the big picture of electric shocks, I think that such 'serious' ones are very rare, and that by far the majority of shocks do not result in significant lasting damage to anything. Even the ones which kill would probably not usually have been followed by any lasting harm had the person survived.