• home
  • bourbon
  • links
  • blog
  • bio
  • contact form
               donstacy.com

Decades Later, Condemnation for a Skid Row Cancer Study

4/23/2014

 
Again better late than never tonight I comment on an October 17, 2013 New York Times article entitled "Decades Later, Condemnation for a Skid Row Cancer Study."  The author, Gina Kolata, reviews a 1950s and 1960s era prostate cancer study performed by urologist Dr. Perry Hudson.  A key issue for the libertarian reader is that this study was funded, in part, by the National Institutes of Health.

The purpose of the study was to attempt to determine if prostate cancer could be diagnosed early and cured.  Thus, consenting patients underwent a prostate biopsy.  If prostate cancer was discovered, the patient underwent surgery +- estrogen hormonal therapy.  The bioethical problems with Dr. Hudson's study are the following: he did not adequately inform the patients of the relevant risks associated with the prostate biopsies and subsequent cancer treatment, he lied to consenting patients about the cure rate for prostate cancer, he treated the patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer with nonstandard therapy, he did not conduct an appropriate study as no control group was created, and he recruited impaired patients (mentally ill, addicts, etc.) who were unable to give informed consent.  So, the relevant physician conducted a grossly unethical study funded by the American State.

A telling anecdote about the study was mentioned in a 1961 book entitled The Bowery Man.  The author, Elmer Bendiner, reported that study volunteers at a New York City-run lodging house were not fed until they kept their scheduled appointment with Dr. Hudson to enroll on the study.  In other words, State officials starved homeless men until they participated in a clearly fraudulent medical study in which multiple crimes of aggression against their bodies were committed.  The LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOGger is not surprised.  You should not be either.

In Cancer Drug Battle, Both Sides Appeal to Ethics

4/16/2014

 
Better late than never, tonight I write about a September 28, 2013 cnn.com article entitled "In Cancer Drug Battle, Both Sides Appeal to Ethics".  This story is about a metastatic ovarian cancer patient who wishes to take an experimental drug (BMN 673), but the pharmaceutical company that makes the relevant drug is refusing to give it to her for free.  What the hell?

More details: The patient is currently not eligible for any of the trials investigating the drug; the patient is seeking use of the drug via a "compassionate use" clause via which the FDA "allows an unapproved drug still in development to go to a patient with few alternatives remaining, also absolving the drug maker of liability should the drug not work or cause harm"; pharmaceutical companies are not required to provide a drug requested under the "compassionate use" clause.

So why is the relevant drug company really refusing to give the drug to the patient for free?  Let us count the reasons: the drug company would lose money by giving an incredibly expensive drug away for free, the drug is incredibly expensive due to the onerous FDA regulation/drug approval process, the drug is also incredibly expense due to the State-decreed IP intellectual monopoly system.  There are probably additional reasons, all caused by the fascist nature of the U.S. medical system.

What is the drug company's PR stance?  The company interestingly claims it "would be unethical and reckless to provide end-stage refractory ovarian cancer patients outside a clinical trial with BMN 673 at this early stage of development".  What is the patient's PR stance?  It is unethical for the company to refuse to provide the drug to her for free to protect "its wallet at the expense" of the patient possibly dying.  Art Caplan, the national bioethics "expert", told the reporter that "it's too early in the process for a compassionate use exception for a different form of cancer than the one" the pharmaceutical company is targeting, especially because the drug could harm the patient even "speeding her death".  

As usual everyone is wrong in this case.  The libertarian analysis is as follows: the pharmaceutical company has no legal obligation to provide the drug for free to the patient, however the pharmaceutical company should provide the drug for free to the patient purely for strategic PR reasons, the patient (any patient) should not entertain the absurd idea that a pharmaceutical company has the legal obligation to provide her with free drugs, the drug is only expensive because of the State, eliminate the State (and therefore the "compassionate use" clause and the FDA and IP) and the problem is eliminated.  

    LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG

    Author

    Don Stacy is a 47 yo libertarian writer and physician.  His articles have been published by multiple libertarian-themed websites.  He practices medicine as a radiation oncologist in Hazard, KY.     

    Archives

    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010

    Categories

    All
    4 Fundamental Principles
    4 Step Heathcare Solution
    Abigail Alliance
    Abraham Lincoln
    Afterbirth Abortion
    Afterbirth Abortion 2
    Ama Bioethics Principles
    Amnesty International
    Animal Rights
    Animal Rights 2
    Banning A Risky Product
    Beneficence
    Bioethics Consults
    Blog Name
    Blog Plan
    Brain-Dead Bioethics
    Brain Dead Bioethics 2
    British Health Care
    Cancer Drugs
    C.I.A. Doctors
    Circumcision
    Classical-Liberal Bioethics
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 2
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 3
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 4
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 5
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 6
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 7
    Clinical Trials Reporting
    Clinical Trials Reporting 2
    Code Of Federal Regs
    Contractarianism
    Cooperative Groups
    Economics Of Healthcare
    Economics Of Healthcare 2
    Engelhardt And Children
    Engelhardt And Children 2
    Euthanasia
    Evidence-Based Medicine
    Facebook Ethics
    Genetic Results Return
    Genetic Results Return 2
    Guatemala S.T.D. Study
    Influenza Vaccination
    Inst. Review Boards
    Inst. Review Boards 2
    Inst. Review Boards 3
    Inst. Review Boards 4
    Inst. Review Boards 5
    Justice
    Just Price
    Kidney Sellers
    Kidney Sellers 10
    Kidney Sellers 11
    Kidney Sellers 12
    Kidney Sellers 13
    Kidney Sellers 14
    Kidney Sellers 15
    Kidney Sellers 2
    Kidney Sellers 3
    Kidney Sellers 4
    Kidney Sellers 5
    Kidney Sellers 6
    Kidney Sellers 7
    Kidney Sellers 8
    Kidney Sellers 9
    Liberation Biology
    Liberation Biology 2
    Liberation Biology 3
    Liberation Biology 4
    Liberation Biology 5
    Liberation Biology 6
    Liberation Biology 7
    Liberation Biology 8
    Liberation Biology 9
    Libertarian Bioethics
    Libertarian Premises
    Libertarian Premises 2
    Liberty Bioeth And Relig
    Liberty Bioeth And Relig 2
    Liberty Encyclopedia
    Liberty Encyclopedia 2
    Liberty Engelhardt Crit.
    Liberty Engelhardt Crit. 2
    Lives At Risk
    Lives At Risk 2
    Lives At Risk 3
    Lives At Risk 4
    Lives At Risk 5
    Lives At Risk 6
    Lives At Risk 7
    Lives At Risk 8
    Lives At Risk 9
    Mandatory Research Biopsies
    Money May Matter
    National Cancer Institute
    National Cancer Institute 2
    Neuroethics
    Nonmaleficence
    Organ Donation
    P.G.D.
    Phys. For Human Rights 1
    Phys. For Human Rights 2
    Political Triage
    Principles For Allocation
    Principles Of Bioethics
    Principles Of Bioethics 10
    Principles Of Bioethics 2
    Principles Of Bioethics 3
    Principles Of Bioethics 4
    Principles Of Bioethics 5
    Principles Of Bioethics 6
    Principles Of Bioethics 7
    Principles Of Bioethics 8
    Principles Of Bioethics 9
    Rationing Cancer Care
    Respect For Autonomy
    RTOG & NSABP
    Secrecy And Radiation
    Showing That You Care
    Sigrid Fry-Revere
    Skid Row
    Soviet Medicine
    Soviet Medicine 2
    Test
    The Carriage-Trade Trend
    The Chemist's War
    The Expanding Circle
    The Expanding Circle 2
    The Expanding Circle 3
    The Expanding Circle 4
    The Expanding Circle 5
    The Expanding Circle 6
    The Expanding Circle 7
    The Expanding Circle 8
    The Expanding Circle 9
    The Nathaniel Centre
    Tuskegee Syphilis Study
    U.N.E.S.C.O.
    U.S. Human Experiments
    U.S. Medical Experiments
    Warning Labels
    What It Feels Like
    What It Feels Like 2
    What It Feels Like 3
    Why Health Is Not Special

    RSS Feed

    Picture
    ANARCHO-CAPITALIST FLAG
Web Hosting by IPOWER