Dianna,

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, you've misunderstood my post. But, it's for me to apologize for not being clearer.

The ethical question I refer to is how should society divide a finite research effort between working in areas that benefit future generations and efforts that benefit the present generation of PwP. But, as I said I don't want to discuss that in this thread.

You mention surveys. Yes, I am excited by their power and it saddens me that more people don't take part. But, it wasn't my intent to discuss them here either.

What I would like us to discuss is our use of evidence, mainly academic papers, in our discussions. It is common for us, and that includes me, to try to translate a piece of research that relates to pre-diagnosis behaviour into potential therapies to reduce post diagnosis symptoms and progression.

A good example of this is smoking.

The academic evidence suggests that people who smoke have about half the chance of getting PD as those who don't [1].

Now, what evidence does that give to the question: would starting to smoke reduce the progression rate of a PwP who has never smoked? And, if it did, would this be worth the dangers that smoking would bring?

The answer depends, at least in part, of your view of the disease's etiology. If you take a view that once triggered the disease progresses remorselessly then it might be too late to start smoking once you've been diagnosed. If, however, you take the view that the disease progresses because of a continuous environmental assualt, then it may make sense.

References

[1] "Parkinson's Disease Risks Associated with Cigarette Smoking, Alcohol Consumption, and Caffeine Intake"
Harvey Checkoway, Karen Powers, Terri Smith-Weller, Gary M. Franklin1, W. T. Longstreth Jr.,
Phillip D. Swanson
Am. J. Epidemiol. (2002) 155 (8): 732-738.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/8/732.long

John