Medical experiments to be done without patients' consent

[elehhhhna]

May 26, 2007, 11:51PM
Medical experiments to be done without patients' consent
Five-year project aims to improve car crash, cardiac, other treatments


By ROB STEIN
Washington Post

The studies are being conducted by the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium, a network that includes medical centers in Seattle, Portland, San Diego, Dallas, Birmingham, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Toronto and Ottawa and around Iowa and British Columbia.

WASHINGTON — The federal government is undertaking the most ambitious set of studies ever mounted under a controversial arrangement that allows researchers to conduct some kinds of medical experiments without first getting the patients' permission.

The $50 million, five-year project, which will involve more than 20,000 patients in 11 sites in the United States and Canada, is designed to improve treatment after car accidents, shootings, cardiac arrest and other emergencies.

The three studies, organizers say, offer an unprecedented opportunity to find better ways to resuscitate people whose hearts suddenly stop, to stabilize patients who go into shock and to minimize damage from head injuries. Because such patients are usually unconscious at a time when every minute counts, it is often impossible to get consent from them or their families, the organizers say.

The project has been endorsed by many trauma experts and some bioethicists, but others question it. The harshest critics say the research violates fundamental ethical principles.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4839234.html

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. I hope I'm never in the control group of this one

I'm just sayin'

[MonkeyFunk]

2. I'm not outraged over this...

it's an attempt to improve critical care during crises, when the patient's aren't conscious and can't give consent.

It's not some Dr. Mengele scheme. It's meant to help - and it sounds like it will.

[ananda]

3. I got the same feeling..

.. that it's likely a good thing.

[Blackhatjack]

4. This opens a doorway to other experimentation that people would find objectionable...

Can we allow the government make the decision to experiment on people because the government determines it is best for government's well-being?

It turns the 'government serves people' principle on its head.

Bad laws and bad policies are often promoted because of 'laudable goals.'

I would ask who gave the government the right to make me into its choice of a lab rat?

Can using prisoners as involuntary participants be far behind? Many people mght say, well ok...

Then the mentally ill would be next on the list. Many people might say, well I am not as comfortable using them, but it might be ok since they are already diminished in some way...

Then the poor who cannot afford to pay for their healthcare...

Then the uninsured ....

Then those who have a genetic pre-disposition....

So how much unfettered power do we really want Government to have in deciding who becomes a participant in medical experimentation?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Well...

Next time you need immediate medical attention and are unconscious, should we wait for you to give permission before giving care?

[Blackhatjack]

12. No just follow the Hippocratic Oath and give me the best care possible, don't experiment on me

You cannot have a study that reveals anything helpful without a control group. The reason for the study is to determine if one approach is better than the other. Someone in a clinical trial is getting less than the best care possible in order to determine the effectiveness of the drug or procedure being tested.

If I choose to participate and give consent that is one thing. If the government chooses for me, that is something different.

I do not necessarily disagree with the position you pose, but you have to admit that once the line is crossed it makes it easier to cross that line with other more questionable procedures in the future.

I do not have faith in the Government to make the best decision for me.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. And the best care possible

may very well be the treatment they're testing.

If the existing treatment is 50% effective, and the new treatment is 75% effective, your position requires receiving the lesser care.

They need to determine if the new treatment is, in fact, superior. There is evidence suggesting it is - it needs to be proven.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. The point, which has been made very eloquently...

...by others in this thread is that we do not know what constitutes the best possible care.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. I would not want to be an experiment: "oops, well, that doesn't work"

I want them to resuscitate me by the best known means.

[Blackhatjack]

6. Key issue here is who is making the decision to experiment on YOU? Is Govt OK?

Consent is a bedrock of medical care in this country.

Take away consent and you have a different agenda in place when providing healthcare services.

Will decisions made on the basis of costs be OK with you?

What if you are over a certain age? Should you get only limited healthcare services after a certain age because the Government determines that is best for providing healthcare services at an affordable cost?

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. exactly

And frankly I don't trust them to make the right decisions.

BTW: decisions making on the basis of cost is already occurring. And it is not ok.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. This is an instance

of them trying to provide BETTER health care. They're not randomly trying various approaches to see what works - they have a specific treatment for which there is evidence that it works BETTER than the current methods. But they need to try it more to ascertain that.

This isn't about doctors just testing various shit on unconscious people, nor is it about DENYING care. Please, read the article.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. And there's evidence that the treatment

they want to test IS better than what's currently used. They want to confirm that.

They're not going to randomly inject you with various substances to see what happens. They have specific treatments in mind that so far appear to show great promise.

[Lost-in-FL]

9. It makes sense to me.

Maybe they want to avoid the placebo effect.





























:sarcasm:

[Nikia]

14. I don't have a problem with this

They are not trying treatment that doesn't work at all or that is unsafe. They are trying to make sure that these methods really save more lives than standard treatments. If I am dying or face severe permanent disability, I am alright with them trying anything that probably works and does not have a higher risk than normal of killing me right on the spot.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. exactly.

I don't understand why so many people here automatically assume some nefarious motive for this. They're trying to save lives, not conduct malevolent experiments on the unconscious.

[BlooInBloo]

16. lolol! Only Americans of a certain stripe see no problem with this.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. What stripe is that?

Those who support science? Those who don't have a paranoid mistrust of Emergency Room physicians? Please tell....

[BlooInBloo]

21. The sort of American who would be likely to be unaware of Tuskegee...

... A very specific type of American.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

[MonkeyFunk]

22. Of course I'm aware of Tuskegee

and this article is absolutely nothing like that.

Please... you're being ridiculous.

[saras]

18. Consent is perfectly practical already

We already have a program in place to give consent to this kind of research AHEAD OF TIME.

My driver's license says on it "organ donor". This was a voluntary choice I made WHEN I GOT MY LICENSE. Because if I get in a crash, it's too late to ask me if I want to donate organs.

It would be idiot simple, and cheap, to add a second question.

And I can change my mind each time I renew my license.

[uppityperson]

20. ER care consists of trying different things.

Following the results, seeing what happens on a concentrated level is a good thing. Having someone looking at the outcomes is good. When you get emergency care, you are allowing them to do what they think is best. How they determine what is best is based on a lot of things, and can change rapidly. A lot of emergency care ALREADY IS "let's try this, let's try that, let's see what works", it is NOT an exact science but a lot of trial, also called experimenting.

This headline is very misleading and I can see how it will lead to a lot more misunderstandings and fears.

[BlueIris]

23. Um, K & R?

Holy shit.