SocraticGadfly: medical ethics
Showing posts with label medical ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medical ethics. Show all posts

August 27, 2009

What happened during Katrina at NOLA hospital? Euthanasia?

The New York Times Magazine has an in-depth look at whether or not several critically ill patients were euthanized at Memorial Medical Center.

I think they were, but in situations that none of us can fully imagine. The best solution, in my opinion, would have been for the Orleans Parish grand jury to true-bill, rather than no-bill, several of the key decision-makers, then offer deferred adjudication in exchange for surrender of medical licenses. Perhaps not permanent surrender, but, maybe for a couple of years.

That said, the detailed story notes that more than four years later, and more than a year after Hurricane Ike hitting Galveston Island, the medical profession still lacks more specific directives for how to handle such a disaster.
-END-

July 31, 2008

Science briefs — life-producing diamonds, skinny mice

First, in a variation on the old clay-crystals theory of crystals as a template for early building blocks of life to assemble themselves, German research says diamonds could have turned the trick.

Second, a relatively new drug can make fat mice skinny — without exercise.

Ethics? Is this bad, especially if the “skinny” doesn’t lead to better cardiovascular health? Is this another not-so-good American quest for easy, instantaneous solutions to the problems of life?

April 21, 2008

That hot new medical study may not have been written by a doctor

Instead, somebody at Merck may have ghostwritten it.

That’s right, Big Pharma has not only been peddling free drug samples to doctors, it’s also been shilling out pre-made research papers, just waiting for a friendly signature.
“It almost calls into question all legitimate research that’s been conducted by the pharmaceutical industry with the academic physician,” said Dr. Joseph S. Ross, whose article, written with colleagues, was published in JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association.

JAMA was burned by one ghostwritten column, in 2002.

April 07, 2008

Finally someone gets religious opt-outs of medical treatment right

Renowned medical ethicist Arthur Caplan says prosecute the parents of children that die from not being taken to a doctor, not being vaccinated, etc.

Even if the parents do so on religious grounds, prosecute them, he says.
Parents do not have the right to watch a child wither away while they pray. Parents do not have the right to watch a child convulse in pain while they pray. Parents should understand that if a child is in agony, if a child is slowly dying before their eyes, that they have an absolute duty, the same as any other parent — religious or not — to call the police, an ambulance or emergency services.

One state has gotten that message. Oregon is trying Carl and Raylene Worthington for manslaughter after they let their 15-month-old daughter die from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection, praying over her while refusing to take her to a doctor, get her medicine, etc.

Caplan says that even if the Worthingtons never spend a day in jail, it sends the right message.

Frankly, I think they need to spend jail time. Not the rest of their lives, but a year and a day.

And, unless they will sign a consent agreement with the state to get proper medical attention for any future children they may conceive, I think both Worthingtons ought to be sterilized.