medical ethics question.

[reyam200]

say, if somone you new and cared for was ill, and dying. and the only reasearch that could cure them was from a doctor that conducted inmoral expirments (human testing, infecting hundreds with a virus to find the cure). and also the person that was ill didn't wish the doctor to treat him or her. what would you do? would you use the reasearch to treat your loved one? or would you oblige to your loved one's wishes and let them die?

[Sisyphus]

Has the research already been conducted, or is it my decision whether or not the doctor is going to carry it out?

[reyam200]

the reasearch had already bein done. on other people. my question is, would you allow that reasearch to be used, knowing how the doctor got it. another doctor is doing the treatment. but the doctor that discovered the treatment used testing on humans without their consent.

this is a hypothetical situation. not a real one.

[Sisyphus]

If the treatment already exists I guess it doesn't matter how it was developed. But in any case, I think the important factor here is that the patient doesn't want treatment. I would try to convince the patient to accept it, but ultimately I can't and wouldn't override his wishes.

[reyam200]

hmm. ya, i think i would do the same, try to convince the person to accept treatment, than deal with any lingering questions of morality later.

[tejaswini]

i would not let the person die and let the doctor who was so immoral cure him/her. i mean after all he has done all that stuff to find a successful cure and when he finally did it why not appreciate the guy for that. i will not let someone loose their lives because of that. a strict no.

[Steph]

As much as I would hate anyone experimenting on me without my consent, I think I would hate even more a person who would withold a cure because of that fact. What is done is done and if good can come from it, then it'd make the sacrifice a little easier to bear in my opinion.

[Glider]

i would not let the person die and let the doctor who was so immoral cure him/her. i mean after all he has done all that stuff to find a successful cure and when he finally did it why not appreciate the guy for that. i will not let someone loose their lives because of that. a strict no.

What about the wishes of the patient? Don't they count for anything?

[DR.Logan]

Glider brings up a serious point with patients whish(hence the Do not revive paper work). At this Point I am asuming Reyam200 hase never heard of Dr. Josef Mengele, known to most as Dr. Death of the german concentration camps. He did open immoral human testing and the medical comunity, though they mostly avoid the subject, have learned much from his mutilation and immoral surgeries of jewish prisioners. They use this knowledge today to save lives, so the answer to your question really is a simple yes, with out the question ever being put forth for you to answer.

[Daecon]

It depends on if you're the Holographic Doctor and your patient is B'Ellana Torres.

 

Then screw the patient's wishes.

 

("Nothing Human", Star Trek Voyager season 4)

[frostbite]

well.. i'm not xur wid my answer too.. its quite immoral for a doctor to do that.. but lets face it, there may be actual experimentations like this happening out there. the use of human guinea pigs for experiments that concern human health because i think the doctor is going straight to the point; its not rats that are likely to be hit with the virus thing but its going to be us humans. sacrifices are always made (i just hope not always!). its for the betterment of mankind. but then again, prior to that the doctor should have run a test on laboratory specimens (rats, hamsters etc.). as for the friend or close one, i think its best that if you want to save her/him let him/her undergo the "immoral treatment", and then you should just keep the fact that she/he has undergone that "immoral treatment."

[MacroQuantum]

There's two questions here that are seperate and clear.

 

1)Should you treat a patient that does not wish to be treated.

No. It is his life. He has the right to choose whether he is treated or not, regardless of his reasoning for doing so.

 

2)Should a patient be given a treament perfected via 'immoral' means.

All testing is ultimately done on human beings, but I suppose the question of morality implies that the test subjects were not volunteers. But provided that the patient wished the treatment, I don't see why not.

[tejaswini]

What about the wishes of the patient? Don't they count for anything?

hey when a person is dying he acts funny, well it is not like he can correct his decission after doing them. it is life.not any kind of riff raff.

"ok oops i'm sorry i didn't mean to die, now can u put me back together."

[Glider]

So, in short, if a person is dying, ignore them; their wishes don't count?

[scicop]

Ok..let take this to reality:

 

Any scientist or physician doing any form of unethical research or medicine adminstration would be subject to prosecution by funding agency, scientific and medical community, and law enforcement (either HHS OIG or FBI).

 

Regarding the ill-fated person, as long as they can make a conscieous decision you can't force them to do anything. Even if you could make a decision, for that person, there are legal ways by which such decision must be done.

 

Certainly there are agents/treaments that are used to treat patients who have not responded to other first, second, or third-line therapeutics. The AE profiles of the agents make usually them a last resort therapy. At the end stages of therapy, the risk/benefit ratio lies in favor of clinical efficacy over the AE profile. But that's up to the decision of the physician, usually based on disease progression and health of the patient.

 

Hope this helps.

[gcol]

Ok..let take this to reality:

 

Any scientist or physician doing any form of unethical research or medicine adminstration would be subject to prosecution by funding agency' date=' scientific and medical community, and law enforcement (either HHS OIG or FBI).

[/quote']

 

Are you sure? Maybe you hope and expect this to be true inyour home country, but that is not the whole world.

 

We have not all been yet shoe-horned into a world-wide agreement on ethics. Sovereign nations are able and willing, so far, to create their own standards, and do so.

[scicop]

Are you sure? Maybe you hope and expect this to be true inyour home country' date=' but that is not the whole world.

 

We have not all been yet shoe-horned into a world-wide agreement on ethics. Sovereign nations are able and willing, so far, to create their own standards, and do so.[/quote']

 

I live the the US of A. The US is fortunate to have agencies such as those under the direction of HHS, as well as pioneering and reputable physician-scientist at the helm of these agencies and US health-care institutions.

 

In addition the US has enforcement agencies such as the OIG upholding HHS, NIH, and FDA guidelines for clinical and pre-clinical research. Furthermore, scientist and clinicians also have their peers to answer to, as they decide funding availabity. Thus, at least in the US, it is in the best interest of scientist/physicians to conduct ethical research or BAM no funding and maybe..jail time!!. I'm pretty confident immoral clinical treatments does not exist in the US, and if it does, somebody will be arrested, sued, and hung out to dry!

[MacroQuantum]

Regarding the ill-fated person, as long as they can make a conscieous decision you can't force them to do anything. Even if you could make a decision, for that person, there are legal ways by which such decision must be done.

Unfortunately, the US also has a strange bent for ethics. I might be able to find it later today, but there was a story last year about a man who went to a hospital with an infection in his foot. Gangreen had set in and the doctor advised amputation. Because of religious reasons the individual was against this. The doctor agreed to do the best that he could. Once the patient was unconcious the doctor quoted "incapacity" and did what he thought was best.

[scicop]

Well depends on what unconcious meant..coma? or just went to sleep or what exactly. The doc took an oath to preserve life. So if that means making such decision would save the man's life, then I'm such a jury of his peers will find him innocent. However, if the dude was just sleeping or the unconscious state was induced by the doc to obtain his way, well that's unethical..and deserving of imprisonment. Would need to know the details..but if he was imprisoned, then something was done wrong by the doc..and he would fully deserve any punishments.

 

I hardly doubt docs make such independent decisions anymore, just the nature of the system. Today in the US there is alot of CYA going on, which can be a good or bad thing, depending on the situation.

 

As far as US being strange and bent bent..yeah..its not perfect..nothing is perfect (i.e. stupid stem cell laws) there are bad apples everywhere you look that make it bad for the rest of us.

 

Unfortunately, the US also has a strange bent for ethics. I might be able to find it later today, but there was a story last year about a man who went to a hospital with an infection in his foot. Gangreen had set in and the doctor advised amputation. Because of religious reasons the individual was against this. The doctor agreed to do the best that he could. Once the patient was unconcious the doctor quoted "incapacity" and did what he thought was best.