Simple test to determine where you stand on this issue.
A population of 100 people has a plague that will eventually kill them over several months. They have a cure that has a fault where 50% of the people who take it will die within a day.
So, with no medicine the death toll is 100 in a couple of months. With the 'bad' medicine, the death toll is around 50 within a day, yet the remaining are cured.
It's a grim prospect either way you look at it, but the bad medicine does save 50 people. Of course, in reality, such a scenario never occurs, and the risks are much smaller (perhaps a few people in a population of 100,000).
I know which option I'd choose though.
A population of 100 people has a plague that will eventually kill them over several months. They have a cure that has a fault where 50% of the people who take it will die within a day.
So, with no medicine the death toll is 100 in a couple of months. With the 'bad' medicine, the death toll is around 50 within a day, yet the remaining are cured.
It's a grim prospect either way you look at it, but the bad medicine does save 50 people. Of course, in reality, such a scenario never occurs, and the risks are much smaller (perhaps a few people in a population of 100,000).
I know which option I'd choose though.
