On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them. We *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest. The fact that we did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to have a conflict of interest.
Well to be fair, the concept of saving the human life is compelling - no less so if its someone known personally. And eagerly assisting in that life-saving should also be understood as a compelling concept.
The claim that we shouldn't have trusted wasn't "this helps save a human life", but "the tradeoff is good". The case for *that* was much less compelling, and much more likely to be affected by a conflict of interest.