(no subject)

[lwoodbloo]

I was going to sleep, but I don't want to anymore.

So, instead I'm going to post.




Medical ethics.

Let's say, kidlets, that I invent a drug that cures cancer in 90% of the subjects it's given to. Ten percent, it causes the malignancy to metastasize rapidly. Painfully. People die.

But 90% survive, cancer free, for the duration.

What do you do? What's the best for the most people?

Comments

[ladyjendifi.livejournal.com]

If people are totally aware of the possible consequences of the medication, than I say let them at it. I'm sure there are lots of cancer patients out there who would take that risk.

[kittenhasclaws.livejournal.com]

What she said :). Exactly what I was going to say, really almost exactly.

[violetshade.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, it only gets sticky once you remove the ability or desire to ask the patient what they want. Until then, pass the buck 'cause it ain't meant to stop here.

[cheshire23.livejournal.com]

Well.....I would say that it would depend on the type of cancer in question.

If it's a cancer that is of the otherwise almost-always-fatal variety, I think that the odds are worthwhile. If it's one of the more easily-treatable cancers out there, I'd probably still make the drug available but thoroughly explain the risks.

I would also work from there to figure out if there is any way to screen for who is likely to be part of the 10%, so they can be steered away from the drug.

[lwoodbloo.livejournal.com]

What if you couldn't screen. What if there was just a flat 10% chance?

[cheshire23.livejournal.com]

If you can't, you can't, but at least you know you've looked for possible correlations.

The trouble I had with the original example is with the idea of defining "cancer" as one monolithic thing when there are so many varieties out there, each with their own lethality or comparative lack thereof.

[lwoodbloo.livejournal.com]

I'm not dealing in specifics here. Dealing in ethics and behavior.

[sisterred.livejournal.com]

It would have to be something that cures ALL types of cancers for me to consider it a viable option. A medication that cures breast cancer won't work on liver cancer. If it did, there would probably be repercussions on other organs. The make-up of the cells is too different. I don't honestly feel that there will ever be a cure that encompasses every type of cancer in one fell swoop.

You know what I'm dealing with. I can't imagine putting Gram on a medication that could potentially make life more painful for her.

[ntang.livejournal.com]

Well, I think there's no ethical concern if there's full disclosure, and if it's taken voluntarily. If you're willing to take the risk for the reward, you should be allowed to.

The only place I see a real potential ethical dilemma is if you had power of attorney over someone else and had to decide whether or not to use it on them.

[just-plain-kc.livejournal.com]

yup, I would have to say it's in the patient’s hands at that point. If risks are explained. they in the end they have the final decision. 10% "failure" is low. But it could happen. That's how they repressed HIV, they give out cocktail meds, they know they will die eventually when the disease fully changes form to AIDS, but they can suppress it and treat the symptoms of it.

Unfortunately the "reality" side is because we are living longer, cancer has become more prevalent. It’s one of the main reasons it came about. Then again you could be living in Endicott and have no warning signs over the years of living there. Thanks IBM!

[ozzdo.livejournal.com]

If I would be facing a slow, painful death from the cancer anyway, I'd take the drug. If there were a chance of treatment and remission, I'd hold off. But I've always beleived that people should be allowed to follow whatever treatment they desire, if they believe there's a chance it may help them.

[scriptgirl.livejournal.com]

Well, you know penicillin is a wonder drug, but some people are allergic to it...