Curse You Medical Ethics!!!

[LazzieLace]

An interesting discussion.

I have an progressive, destructive, condition that will either cause my death or else a major organ transplant. There is no known cure, because they don't know what the initial cause of the disease is.

For me, I wouldn't go on any clinic trials as I'd find it hard to deal with if I was given a placebo and the drug they were testing proved to be successful. I would worry that the disease might progress too much during the trial, so that the drug they were testing might never be beneficial for me.

Of course, you could argue seeing as participants of the trial give their permission that it is all ethical. Worse is where doctors had links to the drugs companies and only prescribed medication belonging to that company rather than what was best for the patient.

On the other hand, I regularly search the internet for any research or trials done relating to my condition. I don't trust that doctors always know what's best as they are dealing with loads of different conditions and hardly likely to know the latest research. I am trying lots of things to try and fix things because I can't just sit here and let the disease destroy me. Like when it comes to medication, I print out the relevant research and persuade my doctor to put me on this medication to see if it has any impact.

One other problem I see with trials is that they rarely last long enough. In relation to my condition, back in 2000 they declared a drug as being beneficial and reversing some of the damage done by the disease. Then about seven years later, they declared that this drug actually progressed the disease a lot faster. Just look at the FDA watch list and you see drugs which have caused recent problems with patients.

 

[PayDay]

Death is the one and only constant in the universe. You are going to die. It's going to happen to everyone. The only difference is how a person dies. This cannot be stopped, yet.

Based on the circumstances, you have the potential to live longer with a medical trial, and an opportunity to potentially fight death for yourself and others.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As ridiculous and racist as you are, the US pharmaceutical companies stumble over themselves to prove that they are even more ridiculous, and even more racist.

They like to do clinical trials of AID's research in Uganda. They have found a treatment for pregnant women with AID's that gives the newborns an increased probability of being born without the mother's disease. They justify giving one section of the trial subjects placebos on the grounds that the women are getting more care then they would without the study.

So they justify giving the test subjects placebos on the grounds that they are giving the women meals and some non-related health care that they never would have gotten in the first place.

It's basically pharmaceutical outsourcing. They go after groups of people that will undertake more risks for less pay because they are desperate. Namely, US homeless, AID's-positive mothers in Uganda, and US prisoners.

JAMES, you made a valid point. I might just die of shock.

Why not make it sweet for the subjects with some real money! Ethics is just anuther way of saying WE'RE TOO CHEAP TO PAY.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not every doctor is an A student, and not every doctor took the job with only the intention of helping people.

Ethics is not a 'makes sense' issue, it is personal and emotional and based on an individual's point of view. That's why Ethics is a pain in the ass, because there are lots and lots of individuals.

I think a person who practices medicine is subject to the ethics of a healer. Their job would be to 'do no harm' so to speak, or do as little harm as possible under the circumstances.

Now as far as clinical research goes, I believe that they are not subject to the same rules, to the point that they should not be allowed to intentionally do harm with the intent to do harm (like testing a supervirus on an uninformed patient) or violate the desires of the ethical majority (which are not static).

It is research, sometimes things go wrong, and this has to be taken into account. If the person they are testing on is well aware of the potential side effects along with the potential benefits, and agree to be a part of the testing, than anything goes in my opinion as long as the ethical majority agrees.

Just think of how many people would be unharmed or alive if they 'clinically tested' DDT pesticide first? But at the same time, someone was still going to have to take the side effects during the testing so on one hand, it is ethically wrong, but on the other, it is ethically right.

Something can be more than one thing, but majority rules in Ethics and Democracy.

(Here's some changing definitions of the same word, it's all about intent)

In your case of one medication vs. the other not as good medication, it is the responsibilty of a medical researcher to find out if the projected 'better' medication really is better. That is their job, regardless of the side effects they may cause a person intentionally, as the researcher's intention is still 'to do no harm' to a majority of patients. So ethically, in the end, their intention is still to do the right thing. If this is not the case, then it would fall under the rules of equipoise.

Now one medication vs a placebo would only be hindered by equipoise if the placebo would intentionally do harm to the person being tested. I think a medical professional should have to take the time to keep a patient from dying, but that's just me.

At the same time, I think people cannot have a problem with medicine being commercial, as a free market increases advances.

I say, instead, have a problem with greed and manipulation.

On the otherhand DDT saved the lives of millions. Only treehuggers think birds for people was a bad swap.

 

[PayDay]

On the otherhand DDT saved the lives of millions. Only treehuggers think birds for people was a bad swap.

Hence why it became an Ethical issue.

Is it worth it to feed millions at the cost of the minority.

The majority ruled when it became informed, hence the minority was disenfranchised.

Sometimes it sucks to be in the minority.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hence why it became an Ethical issue.

Is it worth it to feed millions at the cost of the minority.

The majority ruled when it became informed, hence the minority was disenfranchised.

Sometimes it sucks to be in the minority.

No, we're speaking of birds. Birds dont get a vote....yet. But the Democrats are working on it.