Bioethics in the News – Wednesday, February 22, 2006
February 22, 2006
Transparency Vital in Clinical Trials (Wall Street Journal [subscription required])
Pharmaceutical company Northfield Laboratories is currently running a clinical trial of a blood substitute called PlyHeme. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) raises questions about the fact that an earlier trial was halted and the results were never published (81 people received the substitute, 10 had heart attacks, 2 of whom died). The search for a suitable blood substitute has been going on since at least the 1960s, according to the article, and such a product would bring a host of benefits. Due to the condition of patients who would be the best candidates for treatment (i.e., severe trauma), informed consent is difficult if not impossible to obtain. The FDA has therefore required Northfield to conduct community awareness campaigns about the trial in areas where it is being conducted. However, “Several hospitals have told community meetings that previous trials showed PolyHeme to be safe, failing to mention the 10 heart attacks in their printed materials.” Northfield believes that other factors are responsible for the adverse results. It is vital that clinical trials be as transparent as possible about their associated risks. A more transparent process would have been to disclose the previous adverse results and explain the reasoning behind why they may have occurred.
Economic Misdiagnosis? (via New York Times)
According to the New York Times, “doctors seriously misdiagnose fatal illnesses about 20 percent of the time,” and that “rate has not really changed since the 1930’s.” One reason for the lack of improvement, according to the same article, is a lack of economic incentive to do better. No doubt, economic incentives could play a role in improving the rate of misdiagnosis, but are there other ways move forward (e.g., an increased emphasis on Hippocratic values and covenantal relationships between doctor and patient)?
Opinions worth Reading (via National Review and Christianity Today)
Two members of the President’s Council on Bioethics, Gilbert Meilaender and Robert P. George, respond in National Review to fellow PCB member Michael Gazzaniga’s recent opinion piece on cloning and embryonic stem cell research in the New York Times. Meilaender and George take Gazzaniga to task both for his views on the status of the embryo and for the lack of “serious reflection” he demonstrated in expressing those views. Meilaender and George’s critique aptly demonstrates both the kind of serious reflection as well as the kind of civil interaction we need more of in bioethical debates.
The “Life Matters” column written by Nigel Cameron for Christianity Today brings to our attention the growing “enhancement” movement in bioethics. In short, enhancement is the effort to use science and medicine to make us “better than human.” Among the items that fall into this category are genetic selection, cybernetics, brain-altering drugs, and the active pursuit of radical life extension. According to Dr. Cameron, “The real problem here is the passivity with which these possibilities are being accepted.”
