Albany Medical Center
 Search
Home / Caring / Educating / Find a Doctor / News / Give Now / Careers / About / Calendar / Directions / Contact
Viewing by month: August 2013
August 30, 2013 | Posted By Zubin Master, PhD

Stem cell tourism is a pejorative term used to describe clinics that offer untested stem cell interventions as bonafide therapies to patients with injuries and diseases. This includes Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, ALS, blindness, cancer, cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury and many others. We used to think about stem cell tourism as potential patients traveling to clinics from countries like the US, UK, Canada and Australia to countries with lax regulations, but this simply is not the case anymore. There are several clinics within the US that offer stem cell interventions to treat back aches or sports injuries. This direct-to-consumer market has more recently attracted celebrity types including several high profile athletes, Hollywood stars, and even a US State Governor.

Clinics generally tend to overemphasize benefits, and use rhetoric terms like “alternative medicine” or “experimental treatment” to explain that it is another form of treatment not offered by conventional medicine. But at the end of the day, there is an almost complete lack of scientific evidence supporting the claims made by clinics in regards to the efficacy of these stem cell interventions. The evidence provided to patients is based only on testimonials by other patients; no other measures are used to determine treatment efficacy. The overemphasis of benefits when patients tell others of how great they feel and how it has helped them and given hope only fuels their frustration and distrust in their domestic healthcare, research and regulatory system. The stem cell clinics play on the hype and power of stem cells and they stand to make money as therapies range from $5,000 to $30,000 and in many cases clinics require patients to have repeated treatments.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

August 26, 2013 | Posted By Marleen Eijkholt, PhD

Circumcision has been on my radar in different ways during my training as a health lawyer/bioethicist. Mostly, the issues presented in the form of ethical controversy about female circumcision; is it a form of mutilation or suppression of women on cultural/religious grounds?; as a tensions between religion, culture and resources, and sometimes in the form of questions around legality. However, these encounters were theoretical, and mostly based on extreme examples, interesting but abstract. When I saw a neonatal male circumcision (infant male circumcision: IMC) in my rounds through the hospital as a clinical ethicist, thoughts about the topic of circumcision revived even though this was male circumcision.

Witnessing this IMC, I observed the medical procedure, I saw that there were no parents at the bedside and that the child hardly cried on the sugar drip. This clinical picture was not what I expected. I never expected circumcision as such a routine procedure, seemingly performed without ritual or cultural significance at the bedside. My cultural bias took over, wondering why such an invasive procedure would be performed on a young child without capacity to consent, even though I also witnessed that the child hardly noticed it. Asking the physician about the reasons for it, he referred to the AAP statements, suggestions about health benefits, and to the fact that it is very common in America and mostly done: ‘because this is what Dads looks like’, without much thought.  Looking into the issue, I found acontemporary discussion regarding controversies about male circumcision, cultural biases and evidence based practices. I imagined and asked myself: how would I advise if I received a consult request about IMC? How should I conceive of right and wrong, also in the face of controversial evidence based studies? Especially since even the AAP encourages readers to “draw their own conclusions” (about the technical report and the primary resources). How can I assess this practice?

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

 

August 23, 2013 | Posted By Lisa Campo-Engelstein, PhD

Unlike organs, the U.S. allows gametes to be purchased. Given this dichotomy between the legal treatment of gametes and the legal treatment of organs, the question then arises: how should we legally classify ovaries, which can be used to treat both reproductive conditions (infertility) and non-reproductive conditions (premature menopause)?  

I believe ovarian tissue should be aligned with gametes rather than organs. I recognize that this leads to concerns about the sale of ovarian tissue (e.g., price, access, limitations, etc.). However, ovarian tissue like gametes and unlike other types of transplant, can lead to pregnancy, a socially and ethically important difference. The potential to create a new life is significant because new life often engenders new relationships and legal responsibilities. Whereas organ donors, both living and cadaveric, can remain anonymous, gamete donors typically cannot, at least not fully anonymous. Gamete donors are generally required to provide personal information on a variety of topics, such as physical characteristics, family medical history, religion, personal achievements, and personality traits. Potential recipients (and fertility centers) are usually the only ones who have access to this personal information. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

August 20, 2013 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

In my work as a clinical ethics consultant, I have seen many situations where dying patients or their surrogates make decisions that cause considerable concern and moral stress to physicians, and particularly to nurses who are continually at the patient’s bedside. In an era where respect for patient autonomy is the paramount ethical value, we are obligated to be respectful of these preferences and decisions. But what about the cases where those preferences and decisions lead to procedures and treatments at the end of life which are entirely contrary to sound medical advice? Should physicians follow these directives even if this means that the patient will suffer needlessly and the physician will be performing painful, futile treatment?

Ethics consultations are frequently called on to address issues at the end of life.  One of the most pressing issues involves dying patients for whom CPR would be medically inappropriate. The patient or surrogate will not give consent for a DNR order, insists on remaining full code and that “everything be done” in spite of a prognosis of imminent death.  A case I read about a few years ago illustrates this concern.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

August 15, 2013 | Posted By Posted By Hayley Dittus-Doria

Twenty-three years ago, Arizona State University geneticist Teri Markow collected samples of blood from the Havasupai Indians, who live in a remote corner of the Grand Canyon. She was looking for genetic markers of diabetes, but instead, used the DNA in the blood to study schizophrenia — or so the story goes.

In 2003, the Havasupai sued ASU and Dr. Markow.

But it never happened. Dr. Markow never probed the DNA for anything other than standard, generic markers. So how did she wind up the tarnished target of a classic case study in bioethics?

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

August 13, 2013 | Posted By Jane Jankowski, LMSW, MS

This past week brought the announcement of an agreement between the living relatives of Henrietta Lacks and the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) regarding use of genetic information derived from HeLa cells, NY Times. Henrietta Lacks was a patient at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland in 1951 where she was treated for and ultimately died from, cervical cancer. During her hospitalization, cells were retrieved from her tumor without her knowledge or permission. It is these cells, named HeLa cells, which proved to have an unprecedented ability to grow in laboratory cultures and were the source of many important scientific advances in the 20th centuryWall Street Journal . Neither she nor her family ever received any financial compensation for the vast contribution HeLa cells have made to science and society and restitution is not part of the story this week. Privacy of genetic information derived from Henrietta’s cells is the family’s concern, and rightly so. Of note, the story of Henrietta Lacks, her family, and HeLa cells is now widely known with the publication of Rebecca Skloot’s book, “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” in 2010 – a recommended read for anyone regardless of prior interest or knowledge in biomedical ethics www.rebeccaskloot.com

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

August 8, 2013 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

What do Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher have in common? No, this question is not a joke. It is a serious question, very serious. They are both television talk show hosts and celebrities. This is important. Talk show hosts have the capacity to deliver their message to millions of people. They have a built-in credibility just because their message is broadcast to the masses. Why would they put them on television to tell us stuff if they did not know stuff? Well, perhaps they do not know so much. Perhaps they are just expressing opinions. Perhaps their opinions are wrong, dead wrong. Perhaps in expressing their opinions they are influencing people to make decisions which are dangerous. Perhaps they are influencing people to put their children at risk of serious disease and even death. If they are doing this they are dangerous. Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher are dangerous. Both have been using their celebrity status to discourage people from getting themselves and their children vaccinated against dangerous diseases.

Jenny McCarthy has been a vocal leader in the anti-vaccine movement created by the false and disproven link between vaccination and autism. This link was predicated on false data published by Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

August 1, 2013 | Posted By Bruce D. White, DO, JD

Recently, The New York Times in a series of reports has alerted the world to many of the ethical difficulties in marketing drugs globally. The titles of the articles alone hint at many of the issues: “Drug Research in China Falls Under a Cloud; “Glaxo Says Executives May Have Broken Chinese Law; “For Global Drug Manufacturers, China Becomes a Perilous Market.

Moreover, phrases used contextually in the articles are even more alarming: “Glaxo’s problems may go beyond the sales practices that are currently at the center of a bribery and corruption scandal”; “the company fired the head of research and development in China after discovering that an article he helped write in the journal Nature Medicine contained misrepresented data”; “[research] supervisors did not always ensure that the work done there was of high quality”; “auditors came across six [animal] studies whose results had not been reported, even though early trials in humans were already underway”; “auditors found that Glaxo employees failed to record whether the [human subject] research participants had signed new consent forms”; “Glaxo said that employees were properly monitored trials but that they were not adequately documenting their work”; “[Glaxo] used travel agencies to funnel illegal payments to doctors and government officials to bolster drug sales.”

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

SEARCH BIOETHICS TODAY
SUBSCRIBE TO BIOETHICS TODAY
ABOUT BIOETHICS TODAY
BIOETHICS TODAY is the blog of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, presenting topical and timely commentary on issues, trends, and breaking news in the broad arena of bioethics. BIOETHICS TODAY presents interviews, opinion pieces, and ongoing articles on health care policy, end-of-life decision making, emerging issues in genetics and genomics, procreative liberty and reproductive health, ethics in clinical trials, medicine and the media, distributive justice and health care delivery in developing nations, and the intersection of environmental conservation and bioethics.
TOPICS