The Precautionary Principle in BDSM. TENS again. (1)

This post is on the Other BDSM web board.

Sat 17 Dec 11, 8:52 AM
proccie
UK(HP), 6 yrs

This thread is a sort of continuation of the thread on TENS and the possible risks to the heart

LadyLouella wrote:

We have heart attack case associated with electrics on a high level crossing the heart, and 2 cases of electrics with people on Pacemakers cited by the manufacturers of EStim.

And we have cardiologists and experts, and the pure logic that the heart being a muscle which uses electrical signals to contract the heart wall.

If you want to wait for deaths, you can do so.

But intelligent people tend to want to avoid causing death by predictable risks.

In relation to the smoking analogy, there was evidence from 1911 that smoking could be associated with lung cancer. There were anecdotal reports, and there were scientists in Germany who produced a paper in the early 1930s, and John Hopkins university in the late 1930s showing correlation between smoking and shortened lifespan. In the 1950s the tar from cigarettes was shown to cause cancer in mice. By then given the number of people smoking and developing lung cancer, there were strong studies showing correlation. Simultaneously those who loved smoking would deny that there was any proof that cigarettes caused lung cancer.

It took decades and huge numbers of cases of lung cancer, and then death, to be documented, before this correlation was "proven".

We by contrast are dealing with tiny numbers of people, worldwide, who are using electrics crossing the chest. So thus it is much harder to pull together deaths. As it would mean going through International autopsy reports looking for any cases.

However we have right now reports associating electrics with heart attacks and huge risks to those with pacemakers, and expert cardiologists putting out major warnings against it.

By all means, if you want to be a cowboy, and wait for documented deaths making it to the internet, you can do that.

And if you kill someone in the meantime, I guess you'll be a good example of the risks.

But ain't it better to not kill someone?

This is a text book example of the application of the "Precautionary Principle", the principle that one should avoid risk, all risk.

Of course in life one cannot avoid all risk one can only quantify risk and make an informed choice.

Unfortunately there is ample evidence and a large number of research papers published to show that people are very poor at quantifying risk.

Hysterical posts about killing people and cowboys and comparing the risk to something unrelated, is not helpful or informed or quantified. If we take that approach, the approach of the "Precautionary Principle" then all of BDSM is too risky to do.

Now to TENS and elctro stimulation: Should one use it on the nipples?

The informed choice is to look at the nearest controlled, observed situation, namely the use of TENS in hospitals, in childbirth and to relieve pain in other situations. TENS is regularly used across the torso high on the back. There are no recorded deaths from this.

That's good enough for me.

Of course one can reduce the risks even further, it would be silly to use it if one had a known heart condition or a pacemaker. Using bipolar clamps that pass the current through each nipple will reduce but not eliminate the current across the chest from one nipple to the other. Using a well built commercial machine and not a homebrew lashup is probably sensible. Doing it in company rather than alone is an obvious precaution if something does go wrong.

In the end all of what we do is risky bondage is risky, hell sex is risky. I would rather die having fun rather than boringly.

Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!

Edited Sat 17 Dec 11, 11:26 PM by proccie

17 Dec 11, 1:36 PM
valiant1
UK(ST), 7 yrs

I think a key point here is that the "precautionary principle" is intended to apply to issues where the actions of one person or group could have a serious impact on many others.

So it's sensible to invoke "Do nothing that might cause harm" (unless you've very carefully analysed the whole system and quantified all possible adverse outcomes)- if we are talking about:

building nuclear power stations
buggering about with an already dynamically unstable, chaotic global climate system that all our lives depend on, or
selling stuff that emits cancer causing chemicals into people's air supply.

The question of whether an individual should (or shouldn't) choose to participate a recreational activity where there is a very small theoretical risk of serious harm is one where discussion of the nature and extent of the risk are important for informed consent to take place*, but as the OP suggests, there isn't really a need to invoke the precautionary principle.

*(so it's no bad thing this topic crops up regularly, for educational reasons)

WARNING: The above post may contain inaccuracies, irony or downright sarcasm.Not suitable for anyone allergic to nuts.