Articles

Archive for Medical Ethics

Yes We Can! We Can Abolish the NCCAM! Part III

A Reminder…

…of why we keep harping on this. A couple of days ago The Scientist reported that the “economic stimulus package” may include a windfall for the NIH:

Senate OKs big NIH bump

Posted by Bob Grant

[Entry posted at 4th February 2009 04:12 PM GMT]

The US Senate, which is furiously debating the details of the economic stimulus package making its way through Congress, passed an amendment yesterday (Feb. 3) to add $6.5 billion in National Institutes of Health funding on top of the $3.5 billion already allotted to the agency in the bill…

Exactly how an NIH funding increase will be spent remains to be determined.

You can bet that if this happens, the NCCAM will be licking its chops for some of that lettuce. Let’s continue to explore why it shouldn’t get any…

(more…)

Posted in: Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (4) →

Yes We Can! We Can Abolish the NCCAM!

…and in so doing, President Obama, you and we would abolish the NIH’s second most prodigious squanderer of precious research funds! Surprise: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) spends slightly more on humbug than does the Center created for that purpose. All told, the NIH squanders almost 1/3 of a billion dollars per year promoting pseudoscience.

I’ve decided to add my two cents to the recent groundswell of demand to stop this sordid and embarrassing chapter in NIH history—even more sordid and embarrassing, in its way, than NIH researchers being on the take: pseudoscience is exactly antithetical to the mission of the NIH, which sponsors it repeatedly, officially, overtly, unethically, and dangerously. At least, in the case of Big Pharma greasing the palms of NIH researchers, those involved generally prefer to obscure the transactions, as good sense and traditional mores dictate.

My comments will be somewhat different from others’, not because I disagree with theirs but because it’s worthwhile to stress points that have not been stressed or even mentioned. I won’t bother to justify the assertion that “promoting pseudoscience” is an accurate description of what the NCCAM and the OCCAM do, because I’ve done that several times in the past, beginning here and here, and more recently here. I will plagiarize myself a bit, but only to introduce certain points.

(more…)

Posted in: Health Fraud, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (30) →

Guest Book Review of “Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Ethics, the Patient, and the Physician”

The following book review was written not by your poster (although I’ve added the hyperlinks), but by his friend Cees Renckens, who is a gynecologist in the Netherlands and the chairman of the Dutch Society against Quackery. A short bio of Dr. Renckens, including references to several articles in English, follows the review. Most impressive to me is that he is, as far as I know, the first and only person in the world to have earned a PhD in a field that describes much of the content here at Science-Based Medicine: the rational evaluation of anomalous and implausible medical practices.

For several years, Dr. Renckens and the Dutch Society have been embroiled in a disturbing legal case involving freedom of speech. This was previously mentioned on SBM by astute reader Dr. Peter Moran. According to Dr. Renckens, the Dutch Supreme Court will issue its final judgment of the case at the end of February.

–KA

Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Ethics, the Patient, and the Physician. Edited by Lois Snyder, 241 pp, $69.50, Totowa NJ, Humana Press (2007). ISBN 58829-584-2. 

Reviewed by Cees N. M. Renckens, MD, PhD

During the second half of the 20th century, the Moerman anti-cancer diet was very popular in the Netherlands. Moerman was a family physician with no training in oncology or nutrition. He kept carrier pigeons and believed that his birds never got cancer. Therefore he developed a diet based on food for carrier pigeons. He had no contact with oncologists, nutritionists or other physicians. The Inspector for Public Health for his area was of the opinion that Moerman had “serious medical-ethic defects.”

Add to this example the fact that “alternative” physicians appear to be successful in presenting their approach as highly ethical, with its respect for old wisdom, for the ideas and peculiarities of their patients, and for treatments borrowed from Ayurvedic, Chinese, Tibetan and other third world medical systems, all of which can be classified as backwards, and you can understand why my interest was immediately aroused when I learned that a book had been issued with the title Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Ethics, the Patient and the Physician.

Finally, I thought, a look through ethical glasses at the deceit, at the admissibility of shoddy scientific research of “alternative” treatments, and perhaps a discussion of the necessary rigor of academic medicine and about how to deal with those who reject such rigor. When, in a short review in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, the book was judged to be “excellent,” I dispelled my dislike of the rather high price and ordered it. 

(more…)

Posted in: Book & movie reviews, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (7) →

The Weekly Waluation of the Weasel Words of Woo #9

Resurrection!

Can y’believe it? The W^5/2™, that cesspool of Afflicted Sophistry and Festering Fallacy—not to say that wellspring of Awesome and Absolutely Annoying (Cloying) Alliteration© and that Mother of all Maddening Mixed Metaphors and Sundry Similitudes®—is back! Yup, like the proverbial phoenix rising from the ashes of near-terminal procrastination, and due to overwhelming popular demand, the W^5/2 is reborn!!! Well, it also might have something to do with yer faithful servant needing some time to put together a real paper or two…naaahh! But what the hay, let’s just dive right in and pretend that nothin’s changed, shall we?

(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Chiropractic, Faith Healing & Spirituality, Health Fraud, Humor, Medical Ethics

Leave a Comment (36) →

Paternalism Revisited

Paternalism is out of fashion. Doctors used to have a parent-child relationship with their patients: they concealed the truth if they thought it was in the patient’s best interest, they dictated the treatment and did not have to justify it to the patient. “You have to take this pill because I’m the expert and I know what’s best; don’t ask questions.” Sort of like “You have to go to bed now – because I said so and because I’m the mommy.”

Some time in the 20th century we evolved to a different doctor-patient relationship, an adult-adult one in which the doctor shared expert knowledge and information with the patient and they cooperated to decide on the best treatment plan. The principle of patient autonomy became paramount and the patient gave informed consent to the chosen treatment.

It is generally accepted that this is all for the good. But is it really? In his book Intern: A Doctor’s Initiation, Sandeep Jauhar says, “Over time, my views on informed consent have evolved. I no longer view paternalism as suspiciously as I once did. I now believe that it can be a core component of good medical care.” (more…)

Posted in: Medical Ethics

Leave a Comment (27) →

“Battlefield acupuncture”?

THE SCENE: Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere where U.S. troops are risking life and limb.

THE TIME: The not-too-distant-future. Maybe even 2009.

Joe is on patrol.

It’s the middle of summer in the desert town. The air hangs heavy, hot, dry and dusty, like a blast furnace firing steel. The heat penetrates Joe’s 80 lb pack in much the same way the heat from boiling water penetrates the shell of an unfortunate lobster. Joe’s heart races. His squad is on edge; their eyes dart furiously to and fro, looking for the deadly threat that might lurk in the shadows. Every shadow is a potential source of death, every alley a refuge from which the enemy can attack and kill him or his buddies, every rooftop a fortress from which the enemy can rain death upon the squad. The area is known to be thick with terrorists and insurgents. Joe pictured them waiting unseen from every nook and cranny for the opportunity to attack. The skin on Joe’s back is all prickly. He distinctly feels as though he has a huge bullseye pointed on his back. He feels a bead of sweat dripping down his forehead and onto his eyelid, all slimy and salty. Joe desperately wants to wipe it away, but that would necessitate removing one of his hands from his weapon. The split second it would take for him to put it back might mean the difference between life and death for him or one of his buddies.

A loud roar fills Joe’s ears, and suddenly he feels as though he has no weight. The scene unfolds in slow motion, just like in the movies. Dazed, Joe hears a tumult as though from a great distance, but can see nothing. Yelling and gunfire all around, he becomes conscious enough to realize that he’s lying flat on his back. He feels searing pain in his legs and a hot liquid oozing around them. It occurs to Joe that it must be his own blood or even perhaps his own urine, but he’s just too dazed to care.

“Medic!” Joe hears someone scream. He feels someone pull his helmet from his head and realizes that the sound of gunfire and yelling is receding. His unit must be driving away the ambushers. Good! He thinks. Give those assholes hell, guys! He opens his eyes, and realizes that his buddy’s got his back, and turns to see another man, a medic, drop to his knees at his side. His uniform is stained a disturbing red. Joe feels the medic wrapping something around his thigh. It’s a tourniquet, and Joe cries out in pain as he feels it constricting around his upper thigh.

“Bleeding’s better!” Joe hears the medic say to his buddy. “I’ll take it from here.” Joe’s buddy runs off to join the rest of his unit, and the medic moves his face close to Joe’s. He feels himself being moved from side to side and then his legs being moved. More pain. Joe cries out.

The medic leans in to talk to Joe, “I think we’ve got the bleeding under control for now. I put a tourniquet on your leg. Let’s get you out of here. The docs’ll patch you up in no time.” Joe is vaguely aware of another corpsmen with a stretcher nearby. The medic leans in again, “Are you in pain, soldier?”

“What do you think? My leg hurts like a sonofabitch! I could really use something for the pain,” Joe hears himself yelling, again as if from a distance. Pain is shooting through his leg, setting every nerve on fire, and the tourniquet is biting into raw muscle through the edge of a wound that comes all the way up to his groin. The flayed edges of his skin shoot fire to his brain, and he can feel his broken bones grinding against each other every time he moves in spite of the splint.

“I’ve got something better that’ll help,” the medic screams over the din.

Better? Joe thinks. I’m in agony here. I need something! Anything!

The medic pulls a small box out of his pack. Joe sees that it’s a small case. He opens it. Its contents look something like this:

acupuncturekit

Joe is puzzled. Where’s the morphine? He wonders. “What are those needles?” Joe asks. “What are you doing? I’ve never seen syringes that look like that before!”

“Acupuncture,” replies the medic. “I’ll take care of you.”

“What are you going to do with them?” Joe replies.

“Stick them into your earlobe. It’ll take the pain away really fast.”

“Are you shittin’ me?” Joe screeches, trying to get up to grab the medic by the front of his uniform. “My leg’s a bloody mess, I’m in agony, and you’re tellin’ me you’re gonna stick little needles in my ear and make it all better? Like that‘s going to do anything! I need real pain medicine! Give me morphine! NOW!
(more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Medical Ethics, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (26) →

How SHOULD We Discuss Quackery with Innocents and the Not-so-Innocent?

Recents posts by Drs. Albietz and Gorski have highlighted questions that are recurrent on SBM. We are convinced that medicine should be based on real knowledge, to the extent that it exists, and that physicians should be honest; these are matters of science and ethics. How do we reconcile that with heartfelt, if misguided beliefs of patients, their families, and others? When Dr. Albietz wrote that it might have been better for the chiropractor to visit in the same way that “priests, imams, prayer sessions, rabbis, etc visit children within the PICU,” it was reminiscent of Dr. Peter Moran’s hypothetical “witch doctor.” When he lamented academic medicine’s current dalliances with quackery, it brought to mind the NCCAM, David Katz, Andrew Weil, Bravewell , and their enablers.

Dr. Albietz argued that when talking to credulous patients or their families, taking a hard line against quackery is likely to be counter-productive. Most of us would agree with that. Dr. Gorski described a different scenario: after calling a quack “a quack” when talking to a friend of a friend who is a scientist, he concluded that he had been too “blunt.” Several commenters disagreed, but all would probably agree with Dr. Gorski that “you have to know when to pick one way over another; i.e., diplomacy over all out war or vice versa.”

Another Case of Foot-In-Mouth Disease

I recently had an experience strikingly similar to Dr. Gorski’s, during which I castigated myself for my rancor even as I was incapable of moderating it. Fellow blogger Dr. Val Jones was a witness!

(more…)

Posted in: Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (45) →

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: A Case Study Exploring the Battle Lines of Science Based Medicine

Editor’s Note: This is a guest post solicited by Dr. Hall, who describes Dr. Albietz thusly: He’s a skeptical young pediatrician who works in a PICU and recently had a chiropractor come into the PICU to consult on a child with intractable seizures. He was sort of coerced to allow this at the parents’ request and against his better judgment. His hospital had set a precedent of letting alternative practitioners have temporary privileges in cases like this. He was torn between his academic integrity and doing the most humane thing for the patient and family.

Primum non nocere.” First, do no harm. It is a guiding principle of medicine, and one which is next to impossible to achieve in practice. It is difficult for the general public to hear, but any intervention a physician makes, and indeed the decision to make no intervention, carries a risk of harm with it. Given enough time, every physician will make a decision which results in unintended harm to a patient, even death, and it haunts us every day of our careers. Faced with this horrible certainty, what is one to do? The only responsible, ethical position to take is to ensure that each patient receives the care most likely to generate a positive outcome, in other words, to stack the deck as steeply in favor of the patient as is possible. Diligent application of the scientific method to every therapy, novel and new, old and venerated, is the only way we as physicians can be certain we are doing the greatest good and the least harm to those who seek our help; it is the only way to assuage our conscience if things end badly.

Our professional organizations and academic institutions have been vital in formulating, propagating, and enforcing the practice of evidence based medicine (EBM). They have stood, to borrow the phrase from Carl Sagan, as “a candle in the dark,” promoting the best practices and protecting patients from those that are ineffective, fraudulent, harmful, or even simply sub-standard. It is a heartening environment in which to work.

(more…)

Posted in: Chiropractic, Medical Ethics

Leave a Comment (26) →

The “Gonzalez Trial” for Pancreatic Cancer: Outcome Revealed

A Review

Dr. Lipson’s “detoxification” post on Thanksgiving Day and Dr. Gorski’s recent post about “Gerson Therapy” were timely, because last weekend I noticed something that I should have noticed months ago. Before delivering the punch line, let me remind you, Dear Reader, of the nature of the topic. The regimen advocated by Nicholas Gonzalez is a variation of a “detoxification” treatment for cancer that has been around, in one form or another, for more than 50 years (“Gerson Therapy” is another example).† Here is the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) description:

Patients receive pancreatic enzymes orally every 4 hours and at meals daily on days 1-16, followed by 5 days of rest. Patients receive magnesium citrate and Papaya Plus with the pancreatic enzymes. Additionally, patients receive nutritional supplementation with vitamins, minerals, trace elements, and animal glandular products 4 times per day on days 1-16, followed by 5 days of rest. Courses repeat every 21 days until death despite relapse. Patients consume a moderate vegetarian metabolizer diet during the course of therapy, which excludes red meat, poultry, and white sugar. Coffee enemas are performed twice a day, along with skin brushing daily, skin cleansing once a week with castor oil during the first 6 months of therapy, and a salt and soda bath each week. Patients also undergo a complete liver flush and a clean sweep and purge on a rotating basis each month during the 5 days of rest.

As unlikely as it may seem, in 1999 American taxpayers began paying for people with cancer of the pancreas to be subjected to that regimen, in a trial sponsored by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the NCI, conducted under the auspices of Columbia University. Gonzalez provided the treatments. A few months ago I presented a multi-part treatise on the “Gonzalez regimen” and the trial. It demonstrated that all evidence, from basic science to clinical, including the case series that supposedly provided the justification for the trial, had failed to support any real promise (the case series had previously been considered by reader Dr. Peter Moran, who also found them wanting).

It showed that the impetus for the trial, as has been true for other regrettable trials of implausible health claims, can be traced not to science but to the reactionary politics of anti-intellectual populism: initially to Laetrile and to the “Harkinites,” and more recently to the Honorable Dan Burton (R-IN). It reported that there were major problems with the Gonzalez trial from the outset, and that for at least one subject the regimen was more torture than therapy. It reported that for unclear reasons the trial had come to a halt a couple of years ago, and that it appeared that there would never be a report of its findings.

(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (16) →

Canadian Justice: Breast-Fondling Chiropractor Faces “Interpersonal Skills Training”

There is something unexpectedly sinister about this news report from my former home town in Canada. Apparently, a local chiropractor has been using his “medical training” to excuse his sexual misconduct. Here’s the story from the Halifax Chronicle Herald:

During a hearing in July, the woman said the chiropractor would frequently grip her around the ribs and hold tight, sometimes cupping her breasts, while speaking softly over her shoulder.

On other visits, she said, he would have her lie on a table and would undo one side of her johnny shirt, exposing her breast, place a thumb between her breasts and roll her onto her side by pressing the weight of his own body on her.

Dr. LaPierre testified he performed a technique called the Zindler manoeuvre. It involves applying precise, quick pressure to a restricted joint to restore movement. He said he would have explained the procedure to her the first time but not on subsequent treatments…

The second incident involved a woman who complained that in 2006 the chiropractor “massaged” her breast while trying to find the source of her back pain.

Dr. LaPierre said he was using a technique called “matrix repatterning” that required contact with the woman’s sternum. He said he didn’t recall where the rest of his hand was at the time. He determined the woman had a rib out of alignment.

What was the punishment for his behavior?

Dr. Phillip LaPierre must have a female observer present when he examines women for the next five years, must take training on interpersonal skills and must pay a fine and costs totaling $26,000 now that a panel of the Nova Scotia College of Chiropractors has found him guilty of sexual misconduct based on the two complaints.

It’s hard to imagine such a small fee in an American court of law. If a US physician were molesting his patients, I’m willing to bet that the fine would have an additional zero or two at the end.
(more…)

Posted in: Chiropractic, Medical Ethics

Leave a Comment (22) →
Page 12 of 17 «...1011121314...»