Tag: surgery

Uncategorized

Latinos Left Out Of Clinical Trials … And Possible Cures

July 19, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

Two decades ago, Luis Antonio Cabrera received devastating news: He likely had only three months to live.

The Puerto Rican truck driver, then 50, had attributed his growing leg pain to spending so many hours on the road. The real culprit was a malignant tumor in his left kidney that was pressing on nerves from his lower spine.

His initial treatment involved removing the organ, a complex surgery that, by itself, proved insufficient, as the cancerous cells had already spread to his lungs. Therefore, his primary care physician in Puerto Rico contacted doctors at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in Bethesda, Md., and managed to enroll Cabrera in a medical study to test an innovative therapy: transplanting blood stem cells to destroy the cancer cells.

Today, at 70, Cabrera, a father of five and grandparent who moved to West Virginia with his wife to be closer to NIH, feels strong and healthy. “I come to do tests every six months — I’m like a patient at large,” he said.

… Read More

Image: Paula Andalo/KHN

Be the first to like.
Share

KHN

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Cross Post: Re: Nudges in a Post-truth World 

Guest Post: Nathan Hodson

This article originally appeared on the Journal of Medical Ethics Blog 

In a recent article in the Journal of Medical EthicsNeil Levy has developed a concept of “nudges to reason,” offering a new tool for those trying to reconcile medical ethics with the application of behavioural psychological research – a practice known as nudging. Very roughly, nudging means adjusting the way choices are presented to the public in order to promote certain decisions.

As Levy notes, some people are concerned that nudges present a threat to autonomy. Attempts at reconciling nudges with ethics, then, are important because nudging in healthcare is here to stay but we need to ensure it is used in ways that respect autonomy (and other moral principles).

The term “nudge” is perhaps a misnomer. To fill out the concept a bit, it commonly denotes the use of behavioural economics and behavioural psychology to the construction of choice architecture through carefully designed trials. But every choice we face, in any context, already comes with a choice architecture: there are endless contextual factors that impact the decisions we make.

When we ask whether nudging is acceptable we are asking whether an arbitrary or random choice architecture is more acceptable than a deliberate choice architecture, or whether an uninformed choice architecture is better than one informed by research.

In fact the permissibility of a nudge derives from whether it is being used in an ethically acceptable way, something that can only be explored on an individual basis. Thaler and Sunstein locate ethical acceptability in promoting the health of the person being nudged (and call this Libertarian Paternalism — i.e.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Re: Nudges in a Post-truth World 

Guest Post: Nathan Hodson 

In a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Neil Levy has developed a concept of “nudges to reason,” offering a new tool for those trying to reconcile medical ethics with the application of behavioural psychological research – a practice known as nudging. Very roughly, nudging means adjusting the way choices are presented to the public in order to promote certain decisions.

As Levy notes, some people are concerned that nudges present a threat to autonomy. Attempts at reconciling nudges with ethics, then, are important because nudging in healthcare is here to stay but we need to ensure it is used in ways that respect autonomy (and other moral principles).

The term “nudge” is perhaps a misnomer. To fill out the concept a bit, it commonly denotes the use of behavioural economics and behavioural psychology to the construction of choice architecture through carefully designed trials. But every choice we face, in any context, already comes with a choice architecture: there are endless contextual factors that impact the decisions we make.

When we ask whether nudging is acceptable we are asking whether an arbitrary or random choice architecture is more acceptable than a deliberate choice architecture, or whether an uninformed choice architecture is better than one informed by research.

In fact the permissibility of a nudge derives from whether it is being used in an ethically acceptable way, something that can only be explored on an individual basis. Thaler and Sunstein locate ethical acceptability in promoting the health of the person being nudged (and call this Libertarian Paternalism — i.e.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Double-Booked: When Surgeons Operate On Two Patients At Once

The controversial practice has been standard in many teaching hospitals for decades, its safety and ethics largely unquestioned and its existence unknown to those most affected: people undergoing surgery

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Human Contamination: The Infectious Border Crossings of Jeff VanderMeer’s Area X by Sophia Booth Magnone

“What if an infection was a message, a brightness a kind of symphony? As a defense? An odd form of communication? If so, the message had not been received, would probably never be received” (Acceptance 490).

“What if containment is a joke?” (Acceptance 576).

It all begins with a thorn: the delicate, glittering prickle of an unidentified plant growing at the base of a lighthouse in a sleepy coastal town. On a peaceful sunny day, the thorn pricks a man’s thumb, an act of violence so mild, so mundane, it scarcely attracts notice. Yet the end of the world starts there, where one organism pierces the skin of another. That tiny rift swells to a full-fledged invasion; the man and his lighthouse become the first targets of an inexplicable transformative force. When the initial cataclysm subsides, the coast has been purged of all human life, its inhabitants dead or transformed beyond recognition. The rest of the world is left only with questions. What exactly happened at the lighthouse? What lies dormant in that lonely landscape? Most importantly, how can whatever remains there be contained?

This nebulous, quietly sinister premise forms the foundation of Jeff VanderMeer’s novels Annihilation, Authority, and Acceptance, collectively known as the Southern Reach trilogy. The novels take place, for the most part, thirty years after the mysterious event at the lighthouse, which has been officially categorized an “environmental disaster” and, by most people, forgotten about entirely. Only the government organization known as the Southern Reach continues to investigate the cordoned-off region now designated “Area X”: from the byzantine depths of its crumbling bureaucracy, the Southern Reach dispatches research expeditions, interprets findings, and scrabbles desperately at the possibility of defensive action.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Tumor Scanner Promises Fast 3D Imaging of Biopsies

Caption: University of Washington team that developed new light-sheet microscope (center) includes (l-r) Jonathan Liu, Adam Glaser, Larry True, Nicholas Reder, and Ye Chen.
Credit: Mark Stone/University of Washington

After surgically removing a tumor from a cancer patient, doctors like to send off some of the tissue for evaluation by a pathologist to get a better idea of whether the margins are cancer free and to guide further treatment decisions. But for technical reasons, completing the pathology report can take days, much to the frustration of patients and their families. Sometimes the results even require an additional surgical procedure.

Now, NIH-funded researchers have developed a groundbreaking new microscope to help perform the pathology in minutes, not days. How’s that possible? The device works like a scanner for tissues, using a thin sheet of light to capture a series of thin cross sections within a tumor specimen without having to section it with a knife, as is done with conventional pathology. The rapidly acquired 2D “optical sections” are processed by a computer that assembles them into a high-resolution 3D image for immediate analysis.

The microscope was developed in the engineering lab of Jonathan Liu at University of Washington, Seattle. Liu got the idea after receiving an email from Nicholas Reder, a medical resident in the university’s pathology department. Reder noted that when pathologists examine a tumor specimen under a conventional analog microscope, they must first prepare the sample. That involves the laborious process of taking a thick piece of tissue, slicing it into smaller pieces for embedding in wax before cutting them again into a few paper-thin sections suitable for mounting on traditional glass slides.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Transsexual Charlotte Goiar, against gender ideology

 Transsexual person against gender ideology: “It is not normal” for the LGTBI lobby to impose gender ideology in the classroom, because it goes against the freedom of parents to educate their children”

Charlotte Goiar which sex change was permitted by the Spanish Supreme Court, stated that “The term ‘transsexual‘ is an ambiguous label politicised by the LGBT lobby”. Goiar eventually underwent surgery at age 43. She says that, “Less than one percent of the population suffer from these types of disorders. But gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual associations, which are subsidised, want to impose their assumptions on society”. For Charlotte, “it is not normal” for the LGTBI lobby to impose gender ideology in the classroom, because it goes against the freedom of parents to educate their children (Laura Daniele. ABC 10/03/2017).

La entrada Transsexual Charlotte Goiar, against gender ideology aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Guest Post: Crispr Craze and Crispr Cares

Written by Robert Ranisch, Institute for Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Tuebingen

@RobRanisch

Newly discovered tools for the targeted editing of the genome have been generating talk of a revolution in gene technology for the last five years. The CRISPR/Cas9-method draws most of the attention by enabling a more simple and precise, cheaper and quicker modification of genes in a hitherto unknown measure. Since these so-called molecular scissors can be set to work in just about all organisms, hardly a week goes by without headlines regarding the latest scientific research: Genome editing could keep vegetables looking fresh, eliminate malaria from disease-carrying mosquitoes, replace antibiotics or bring mammoths back to life.

Naturally, the greatest hopes are put into its potential for various medical applications. Despite the media hype, there are no ready-to-use CRISPR gene therapies. However, the first clinical studies are under way in China and have been approved in the USA. Future therapy methods might allow eradicating hereditary illnesses, conquering cancer, or even cure HIV/AIDS. Just this May, results from experiments on mice gave reason to hope for this. In a similar vein, germline intervention is being reconsidered as a realistic option now, although it had long been considered taboo because of how its (side)effects are passed down the generations.

The developmental history of genome editing reveals itself as a recalibration of ethical standards in research. Two years ago, the first-time use of these new tools on (non-viable) embryos in China led to a solid scandal; in retrospect, it is not clear anymore whether the outrage was triggered by ethical concerns or by the circumstance that this (perceived) taboo was broken by China of all countries.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Samaritan Ministries and Ectopic Pregnancies

As I was reading Laura Turner’s Buzzfeed essay about Christian health sharing ministries this past week, I was startled to discover that Samaritan Ministries, the insurance alternative my husband uses, does not cover expenses related to ectopic pregnancies.

In Section VIII of the Samaritan Ministries Guidelines, “Needs Shared by Members,” Ectopic Pregnancies is listed as the ninth item under “Miscellaneous Items Not Shared.” The guidelines state:

“Expenses related to the termination of the life of an unborn child are not publishable. The removal of a living unborn child from the mother which results in the death of the child is a ‘termination of the life of the child’ unless the removal was one for the primary purpose of saving the life of the child, or improving the health of the child. This means that the removal from the mother of an unborn child due to an ectopic pregnancy (outside the normal location in the uterus) is not publishable unless the member states they believed the child was not alive before the procedure. Considerations of the health or life of the mother does not change that the removal of a living unborn child from the mother may be a termination of life.”[1]

Ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus, most commonly in one of the fallopian tubes.[2]  The condition is highly dangerous to the mother, who is at risk of internal rupturing and blood loss.[3]  While there are different classifications of ectopic pregnancies and a few different methods of treatment, Turner approximates the cost of surgery to save the life of the mother to be around $15,000.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.