Bioethics in the News — Wednesday, February 15, 2006
February 15, 2006
Clinical Trials of Non-Embryonic Stem Cells (Washington Times)
Johns Hopkins is currently running a trial to see if mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow can regenerate a damaged heart.” While the results will not be known for several months, the story provides an interesting overview of the process of “making a new therapy available.” Hint: “a difficult and heavily regulated process.” This isn’t a necessarily criticism, rather, it is reflective of a high level of concern for patient safety. In addition, understanding the rigorousness of the process helps bolster arguments than any treatment from embryonic stem cell research and/or cloning is years if not decades away, and stands in sharp contrast to the kind of rhetoric heard from proponents of government funding for such research.
Prescriptions, Promising but Pricey (New York Times)
Genentech plans to charge $100,000 per year for its cancer drug Avastin.
Until now, drug makers have typically defended high prices by noting the cost of developing new medicines. But executives at Genentech and its majority owner, Roche, are now using a separate argument — citing the inherent value of life-sustaining therapies. If society wants the benefits, they say, it must be ready to spend more for treatments like Avastin and another of the company’s cancer drugs, Herceptin, which sells for $40,000 a year.
Certainly drug companies have to earn a profit in order to stay in business and contiue to deliver existing medications and develop new ones. The arguments presented in this article, though, smack of ruthless profiteering. Perhaps something has gotten lost in translation (Roche is a Swiss company). At any rate, don’t look for these kinds of economic issues to go away anytime soon.
Wal-Mart Ordered to Carry Morning After Pill in Massachusetts (Reuters)
A Massachusetts state regulatory board voted unanimously “to require Wal-Mart stores to stock morning-after contraceptives, two weeks after three women in the state sued Wal-Mart for refusing to fill orders for the pills.” Wal-Mart says that it does not stock the pill due to low demand. Illinois is the only other state that requires Wal-Mart to stock the morning after pill, and Illinois pharmacists have filed suit claiming a violation of their rights of conscience. Here the dispute arises out of the fact that one of the actions of the morning-after pill is to prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus (an abortifacient action). Proponents of the morning-after pill argue that it is not an abortifacient by asserting that pregnancy does not begin until implantation. Again, these kinds of issues are not going away soon. For an overview of conscience issues, see “Protecting the Health Care Provider’s Right of Conscience” by law professor Teresa Stanton Collett.
