Bioethics: March 2008 Archives
Conflicts of Interest have risen their ugly head again in human subject research. This time hidden tobacco money appears to have funded a study suggesting that lung scans might help save smokers from cancer and thereby lessen the risks of smoking.
Both the New England
The issue of whether such routine scans are worthwhile is a hot topic and a critical public health issue. In fact, the American Cancer Society and numerous other groups have provided funding to the Cornell team to see if routinely screening smokers with CT scans can reveal early signs of lung cancer and prevent deaths.
JAMA’s editor in chief Dr. Catherine DeAngelis said she contacted Cornell’s lead researcher Dr. Claudia Henschke months ago after learning that the Cornell group held patents related to CT scanning technology which also were not disclosed. Said Dr. DeAngelis, "We'd been working with Dr. Henschke trying to get her to write a letter of apology — which is our policy — and to take responsibility. It was not easy to get her to do anything." DeAngelis further said that, had she known big tobacco had funded the research, “ I would have turned down the paper."
Alan Milstein
Alan Milstein
In
The family of John Ritter has sued
The more things change and the more advanced we are with our technology, the more they remain the same. As long as there is any human component whatsoever to a process, there will always be a margin of error. The Washington Post reports today that a government laptop computer containing sensitive medical information on 2,500 patients enrolled in a National Institutes of Health study was stolen in February. Yes, February.
Included in the stolen data was seven years' worth of clinical trial data, including names, medical diagnoses and details of the patients' heart scans. The information was not encrypted, in violation of the government's data-security policy.
NIH officials did not publicly disclose the theft and did not formally, in writing, notify the affected patients of the breach in security until last Thursday -- almost a month later. NIH officialts said they delayed because of concerns that they would provoke undue alarm. Yeah, ya think?
The Washington Post further reported that this month, the Government Accountability Office found that at least 19 of 24 agencies reviewed had experienced at least one breach that could expose people's personal information to identity theft.
Representative Barney Frank announced he intends to introduce a bill decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. Whether it has much chance of success is another story, but hopefully the proposal will begin the much needed debate. Frank says his principal motivation is the absurd actions of federal law enforcement in prosecuting those using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Currently thirteen states allow those with cancer or aids or other debilitating illnesses to use marijuana to relieve their pain or nausea or to improve their appetite. The remaining states and the federal government would rather spend resources prosecuting the desperately ill who seek some measure of comfort from this ancient herbal remedy.
Alan Milstein
Here is an excellent piece by Arthur Caplan writing in Science Progress about the ethics of steroid use. Art writes:
The battle over performance enhancement is often fought out as if one size fits all—what makes performance enhancement acceptable in one domain, sports, will make it acceptable in all aspects of life. What the fight between Harris and Sandel reveals is that this is not so. There are reasons to believe that steroids don’t belong in sports, even putting safety concerns aside. But this does not mean that performance-enhancing drugs have no appropriate role in any areas of life and achievement. The decision about what role pharmacology and genetics ought to play depends on whether you are trying to travel to another planet, solve a difficult math problem, learn a new language, or hit a home run.
The Ninth Circuit yesterday issued its anxiously awaited Opinion in Lanier v. City of
The city had argued that it had a substantial and important interest in screening library pages mainly because drug abuse is a serious societal problem and might have an adverse impact on job performance. The court cogently rejected these arguments reasoning that prior decisions of the United States Supreme Court "make clear the need for suspicionless testing must be far more specific and substantial than the generalized existence of a societal problem of the sort that [the employer] has posited." The court noted that the need in suspicionless cases not involving high risk or safety-sensitive tasks must be "special" and not merely "symbolic."
Alan Milstein
The Seattle Biomedical Research Institute wants to infect healthy human subjects with malaria to test a new vaccine. The Center will be offering $2000 to the human guinea pigs willing to rent their bodies for the greater good. Is it ethical? Depends who you ask. Here is a study with all risk and no benefit to the healthy subjects, other than the two grand, and money is not supposed to count as a benefit. The money is the problem, of course, as it always is. The money is used to induce the needy to be subjects, not for altruism, but for the basic necessities of life or maybe just some spending money. If you doubt that, see if there are any rich folks you know who want to volunteer.
The researchers seem certain that they can quickly cure anyone infected and that the worst the subjects will experience are some flu like symptoms. Where have we heard that before?
Stay tuned.
Alan Milstein
Wendy Parmet of the Hastings Center Bioethics Forum has written an excellent article on the recent moves by the Supreme Court to shield device and drug manufacturers from liability. In Safety First-Or Safety Preempted, Ms. Parmet writes what many of us know: the FDA has historically done a poor job of protecting consumers and the threat of liability is critical to keeping BigPharma in check.
The New Jersey Legislature unanimously released an important bill out of committee today. The bill requires physicians to obtain informed consent from the parent of a child before prescribing a psychotropic drug containing a Black Box warning issued by the FDA. Testifying before the committee were firm clients
The Supreme Court issued its second opinion on preemption is as many weeks, this time in Warner Lambert v. Kent, rendering a split 4 to 4 opinion that leaves this critical issue still up for grabs. The case involved Warner-Lambert’s diabetes drug Rezulin, which was pulled from the market in 2000 when it was revealed that it caused liver damage.
The Court considered a
Still another preemption case looms on the horizon, Wyeth vs. Levine, and Roberts unfortunately does not own stock in Wyeth.
Alan Milstein
Here is an article about the work of two clients of the firm and their efforts to protect the children of
