an unethical cure?

the ny times has an interesting article about hangover cures. prickly pear extract appears to be the way to go. i began the article as a fyi regarding the kinds of new "cures" for this self-inflicted set of maladies, but the article touches on more than that.

jonathan glater delves into the morals of hangover research, if briefly. hangovers and other "alcohol-related problems" cost the us $150 a year in lost productivity, and i'm sure that many americans have been less productive on a friday morning than they're willing to admit. creating a cure is certainly financially justifiable. however, would it create a nation of alcoholics?

The development of a foolproof hangover cure, for example, might encourage people to drink more, knowing they could take a pill to avoid suffering the next day.

would a hangover cure increase the amount that people would drink? i say yes, but only minutely so. first, i'm willing to bet most people forget how truly awful their last hangover was. second, the reason most people drink to the point they are physically ill in the morning is that they do what economists call discounting the future. in this phenomenon, people put less weight on their future well-being than on their current wellbeing. a hangover doesn't factor into one's choice of beverage as much as it should anyway for these reasons, so i see little reason for the hangover cure to make a huge impact on decisions. (more on discounting the future)

even if it did encourage people to drink a bit more, so what? well, glater notes:

And the prospect of bus drivers' or airplane pilots' popping hangover pills and going to work is enough to give anyone pause.

but consider the alternative: the pilot that doesn't have an effective hangover cure, and has to go to work anyway. who would you want holding your life in their hands? the benefits may outweigh the possible risk of a few more people having another drink.

Labels: social