R. Alta Charo
The New England Journal of Medicine
August 12, 201
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1510279
We have a duty to use fetal tissue for research and therapy.
This statement might seem extreme in light of recent events that have reopened a seemingly long-settled debate over whether such research ought even be permitted, let alone funded by the government. Morality and conscience have been cited to justify defunding, and even criminalizing, the research, just as morality and conscience have been cited to justify not only health care professionals' refusal to provide certain legal medical services to their patients but even their obstruction of others' fulfillment of that duty.
But this duty of care should, I believe, be at the heart of the current storm of debate surrounding fetal tissue research, an outgrowth of the ongoing effort to defund Planned Parenthood. And that duty includes taking advantage of avenues of hope for current and future patients, particularly if those avenues are being threatened by a purely political fight — one that, in this case, will in no way actually affect the number of fetuses that are aborted or brought to term, the alleged goal of the activists involved.
The entire article is here.
Showing posts with label Clinical Research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinical Research. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Markingson case: University of Minnesota can't regain trust under current leadership
By Arne H. Carlson
The Star Tribune
Originally published April 10, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Ever since the violent suicide of Dan Markingson in 2004, the administration of the University of Minnesota has received repeated calls for the release of more details about the care and protection afforded the victim. These calls have come from faculty members at the university, from local community members and from researchers from around the world. But instead of being transparent and forthright, the administration created a standard response similar to that expressed by the university’s former general counsel, Mark Rotenberg: “As we’ve stated previously, the Markingson case has been exhaustively reviewed by Federal, State and academic bodies since 2004. The FDA, the Hennepin County District Court, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office and the University’s Institutional Review Board have all reviewed the case. None found fault with any of our faculty.”
The entire article is here.
The Star Tribune
Originally published April 10, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Ever since the violent suicide of Dan Markingson in 2004, the administration of the University of Minnesota has received repeated calls for the release of more details about the care and protection afforded the victim. These calls have come from faculty members at the university, from local community members and from researchers from around the world. But instead of being transparent and forthright, the administration created a standard response similar to that expressed by the university’s former general counsel, Mark Rotenberg: “As we’ve stated previously, the Markingson case has been exhaustively reviewed by Federal, State and academic bodies since 2004. The FDA, the Hennepin County District Court, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office and the University’s Institutional Review Board have all reviewed the case. None found fault with any of our faculty.”
The entire article is here.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Book raises alarms about alternative medicine
Liz Szabo
USA TODAY
Originally posted June 28, 2013
Doctors diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis, in which pancreatic enzymes begin digesting not just food, but the pancreas itself.
The most likely cause of the girl's condition: toxic side effects from more than 80 dietary supplements, which the girl's mother carried in a shopping bag, says Sarah Erush, clinical pharmacy manager at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, where the girl was treated last summer.
The girl's mother had been treating her with the supplements and other therapies for four years to treat the girl's "chronic Lyme disease," a condition that, experts say, doesn't actually exist. While some Lyme infections cause pain and other lingering symptoms, the infections don't persist for years. And, according to the Infectious Disease Society of America, the infections don't require years of antibiotics or other risky therapies given by some alternative medicine practitioners.
Doctors were able to control the girl's illness with standard therapies, Erush says, and she was discharged from the hospital after two weeks.
Although the child's story was unforgettable, Erush says, it wasn't unusual. Parents now "routinely" bring children to her hospital with a variety of alternative remedies, hoping that nurses will administer them during a child's stay.
(cut)
Arthur Caplan, the director of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, says alternative healers satisfy patients' needs for more personal attention.
"Medicine does a very poor job of addressing the emotional, spiritual and even psychological side of things," Caplan says. "When you are not good at doing important things, other people rush into that vacuum."
Yet people who put their faith in alternative healers and supplements may be putting themselves at risk, Caplan says.
The alternative therapy industry capitalizes on a number of common sentiments, Offit says, from a naïve belief in the safety of all things natural to distrust of government regulation.
The entire story is here.
USA TODAY
Originally posted June 28, 2013
Doctors diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis, in which pancreatic enzymes begin digesting not just food, but the pancreas itself.
The most likely cause of the girl's condition: toxic side effects from more than 80 dietary supplements, which the girl's mother carried in a shopping bag, says Sarah Erush, clinical pharmacy manager at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, where the girl was treated last summer.
The girl's mother had been treating her with the supplements and other therapies for four years to treat the girl's "chronic Lyme disease," a condition that, experts say, doesn't actually exist. While some Lyme infections cause pain and other lingering symptoms, the infections don't persist for years. And, according to the Infectious Disease Society of America, the infections don't require years of antibiotics or other risky therapies given by some alternative medicine practitioners.
Doctors were able to control the girl's illness with standard therapies, Erush says, and she was discharged from the hospital after two weeks.
Although the child's story was unforgettable, Erush says, it wasn't unusual. Parents now "routinely" bring children to her hospital with a variety of alternative remedies, hoping that nurses will administer them during a child's stay.
(cut)
Arthur Caplan, the director of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, says alternative healers satisfy patients' needs for more personal attention.
"Medicine does a very poor job of addressing the emotional, spiritual and even psychological side of things," Caplan says. "When you are not good at doing important things, other people rush into that vacuum."
Yet people who put their faith in alternative healers and supplements may be putting themselves at risk, Caplan says.
The alternative therapy industry capitalizes on a number of common sentiments, Offit says, from a naïve belief in the safety of all things natural to distrust of government regulation.
The entire story is here.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Viewpoint: We Need to Rethink Rehab
By David Sheff
Time
Originally published April 3, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
I’ve already written about my experience with Nic, but for my new book, Clean, I wanted to understand why so many suffer and die. So I undertook an investigation of the treatment system that so often fails. I learned that no one actually knows how often treatment works, but an oft-quoted number of those who abstain from using for a year after rehab is 30%. Even that figure is probably high. “The therapeutic community claims a 30% success rate, but they only count people who complete the program,” according to Joseph A. Califano Jr., the founder of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse and former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. “Seventy to eighty percent drop out in three to six months.” Over the course of my research, I did hear one statistic that I trusted. Father John Hardin, chair of board of trustees at St Anthony’s, a social services foundation with an addiction recovery program in San Francisco, told me, “Success for us is that a person hasn’t died.”
The treatment system fails because it’s rooted in an entrenched but inaccurate view that addicts are morally bereft and weak. If they weren’t, the belief goes, they’d stop using when drugs begin to negatively impact their lives. Most treatment centers in America are based on an archaic philosophy that’s rooted in the Twelve-Step model of recovery. Twelve-Step programs have saved countless lives, but they don’t work for a majority of people who try them. It’s not a fault in the program itself. Its founder, Bill Wilson, wrote, “These are but suggestions.” But many rehabs require them. This is particularly problematic for teenagers and young adults, the very people most susceptible to addiction. Twelve-Step programs require people to accept their powerlessness and turn their lives over to God or another higher power. Many adolescents question religion and in general teenagers aren’t going to turn their lives over to anyone.
In many of these Twelve-Step-based programs, patients are berated and yelled at if they don’t “surrender” and practice the steps. They’re warned — in some cases, threatened — that if they don’t they’ll relapse and die. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The entire story is here.
Time
Originally published April 3, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
I’ve already written about my experience with Nic, but for my new book, Clean, I wanted to understand why so many suffer and die. So I undertook an investigation of the treatment system that so often fails. I learned that no one actually knows how often treatment works, but an oft-quoted number of those who abstain from using for a year after rehab is 30%. Even that figure is probably high. “The therapeutic community claims a 30% success rate, but they only count people who complete the program,” according to Joseph A. Califano Jr., the founder of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse and former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. “Seventy to eighty percent drop out in three to six months.” Over the course of my research, I did hear one statistic that I trusted. Father John Hardin, chair of board of trustees at St Anthony’s, a social services foundation with an addiction recovery program in San Francisco, told me, “Success for us is that a person hasn’t died.”
The treatment system fails because it’s rooted in an entrenched but inaccurate view that addicts are morally bereft and weak. If they weren’t, the belief goes, they’d stop using when drugs begin to negatively impact their lives. Most treatment centers in America are based on an archaic philosophy that’s rooted in the Twelve-Step model of recovery. Twelve-Step programs have saved countless lives, but they don’t work for a majority of people who try them. It’s not a fault in the program itself. Its founder, Bill Wilson, wrote, “These are but suggestions.” But many rehabs require them. This is particularly problematic for teenagers and young adults, the very people most susceptible to addiction. Twelve-Step programs require people to accept their powerlessness and turn their lives over to God or another higher power. Many adolescents question religion and in general teenagers aren’t going to turn their lives over to anyone.
In many of these Twelve-Step-based programs, patients are berated and yelled at if they don’t “surrender” and practice the steps. They’re warned — in some cases, threatened — that if they don’t they’ll relapse and die. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The entire story is here.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Looking for Evidence That Therapy Works
By Harriet Brown
The New York Times
Originally posted on March 25, 2013
Mental-health care has come a long way since the remedy of choice was trepanation — drilling holes into the skull to release “evil spirits.” Over the last 30 years, treatments like cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy and family-based treatment have been shown effective for ailments ranging from anxiety and depression to post-traumatic stress disorder and eating disorders.
The trouble is, surprisingly few patients actually get these kinds of evidence-based treatments once they land on the couch — especially not cognitive behavioral therapy. In 2009, a meta-analysis conducted by leading mental-health researchers found that psychiatric patients in the United States and Britain rarely receive C.B.T., despite numerous trials demonstrating its effectiveness in treating common disorders. One survey of nearly 2,300 psychologists in the United States found that 69 percent used C.B.T. only part time or in combination with other therapies to treat depression and anxiety.
C.B.T. refers to a number of structured, directive types of psychotherapy that focus on the thoughts behind a patient’s feelings and that often include exposure therapy and other activities.
Instead, many patients are subjected to a kind of dim-sum approach — a little of this, a little of that, much of it derived more from the therapist’s biases and training than from the latest research findings. And even professionals who claim to use evidence-based treatments rarely do. The problem is called “therapist drift.”
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Originally posted on March 25, 2013
Mental-health care has come a long way since the remedy of choice was trepanation — drilling holes into the skull to release “evil spirits.” Over the last 30 years, treatments like cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy and family-based treatment have been shown effective for ailments ranging from anxiety and depression to post-traumatic stress disorder and eating disorders.
The trouble is, surprisingly few patients actually get these kinds of evidence-based treatments once they land on the couch — especially not cognitive behavioral therapy. In 2009, a meta-analysis conducted by leading mental-health researchers found that psychiatric patients in the United States and Britain rarely receive C.B.T., despite numerous trials demonstrating its effectiveness in treating common disorders. One survey of nearly 2,300 psychologists in the United States found that 69 percent used C.B.T. only part time or in combination with other therapies to treat depression and anxiety.
C.B.T. refers to a number of structured, directive types of psychotherapy that focus on the thoughts behind a patient’s feelings and that often include exposure therapy and other activities.
Instead, many patients are subjected to a kind of dim-sum approach — a little of this, a little of that, much of it derived more from the therapist’s biases and training than from the latest research findings. And even professionals who claim to use evidence-based treatments rarely do. The problem is called “therapist drift.”
The entire story is here.
Friday, March 22, 2013
At Penn State, Academics Drive Effort to Hire Child-Abuse Experts
By Robin Wilson
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published March 11, 2013
When the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse scandal broke, in 2011, professors at Pennsylvania State University were as shocked as anyone else. Then they did what faculty members often do: They set about formulating an academic response to the horrifying incidents, some of which had occurred on their own University Park campus.
The result is a campaign to hire over the next three years a dozen faculty members whose work focuses on child abuse and entails cutting-edge research, clinical treatment, and public education about the problem. The hiring is on a fast track: The university just opened six searches and hopes to have a half-dozen new tenured and tenure-track hires on campus by next fall.
The entire story is here.
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published March 11, 2013
When the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse scandal broke, in 2011, professors at Pennsylvania State University were as shocked as anyone else. Then they did what faculty members often do: They set about formulating an academic response to the horrifying incidents, some of which had occurred on their own University Park campus.
The result is a campaign to hire over the next three years a dozen faculty members whose work focuses on child abuse and entails cutting-edge research, clinical treatment, and public education about the problem. The hiring is on a fast track: The university just opened six searches and hopes to have a half-dozen new tenured and tenure-track hires on campus by next fall.
The entire story is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)