- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 4,515
So there was this vaccine, NicVax, that was going to be the next big thing in smoking cessation. It was designed to produce an immunologic reaction to nicotine, and thereby curb the craving to smoke. It had some promising trials really promising initial studies but failed to outperform placebo in phase III trial.
What was interesting is that it was only tested on smokers. The idea was that the vaccine would make smoking less pleasurable and thereby help them quit. However it was never once tested on actual non-smokers, particularly children, to see if there was any reduction in the rate that they became addicted to cigarettes.
So my question, suppose NicVax worked, and made cigarettes less pleasurable. Sooner or later something like that WILL happen, even if this vaccine isn't it. Do you guys think it would be ethical to vaccinate a child so that they are physiologically unable to develop something we view as a bad habit? Or does such an action necessarily infringe on a child's freedom to plot their own course in life?
What was interesting is that it was only tested on smokers. The idea was that the vaccine would make smoking less pleasurable and thereby help them quit. However it was never once tested on actual non-smokers, particularly children, to see if there was any reduction in the rate that they became addicted to cigarettes.
So my question, suppose NicVax worked, and made cigarettes less pleasurable. Sooner or later something like that WILL happen, even if this vaccine isn't it. Do you guys think it would be ethical to vaccinate a child so that they are physiologically unable to develop something we view as a bad habit? Or does such an action necessarily infringe on a child's freedom to plot their own course in life?
