Ethical questions surround Parkinson’s stem cell experimental treatment
by Michael Cook | 16 May 2020 |
George Lopez, the Parkinson's patient who gave $2 million for Parkinson's / YOUTUBE
Reprogramming a patient's own skin cells to replace cells in the brain that are progressively lost during Parkinson's disease has been shown to be technically feasible, reports a team of investigators from McLean Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in the most recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
"Because the cells come from the patient, they are readily available and can be reprogrammed in such a way that they are not rejected on implantation. This represents a milestone in 'personalized medicine' for Parkinson's," says senior author Kwang-Soo Kim.
The researchers reprogrammed a 69-year-old patient's skin cells to induced pluripotent stem cells and then differentiated them. The patient reports an improvement in his quality of life. Routine activities, such as tying his shoes, walking with an improved stride, and speaking with a clearer voice, have become possible again.
It’s only data from a single patient, but it is good news. However, the experiment raises a number of ethical issues, an article in STAT points out.
First of all, the patient, Dr George Lopez, helped to fund the research. He is a former doctor and the founder of a successful medical equipment company. He also paid for the legal work needed to get FDA approval.
Scientific integrity. When a patient funds research leading to a clinical trial, “scientists can be incentivized to make decisions that are optimized for the patient-funder and not the science,” said bioethicist Jonathan Kimmelman of McGill University.
Informed consent. While Lopez is a doctor who understands the risks, it is possible that his financial stake might have distorted his judgement.
Suborning researchers. “We want to believe that science advances where it’s most promising. There is something deeply inequitable about a wealthy individual commandeering research resources,” one bioethicist told Stat.
Secrecy. The experiment was published 32 months after Lopez had his first surgery. “That seems like an awfully long time,” said bioethicist Alison Bateman-House of New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine. “It’s OK to wait until you have more data before disclosing results, but at least give us something in real time. You have an ethical responsibility to disclose what you’ve done, such as in a paper presented at a medical meeting.”
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge
If I receive an email which begins: "The World Deserves the Truth…. Please brace yourself for the following information I’m about to share with you", I am not inclined to believe it.
However, this particular one is so creative that it deserves to be shared. Apparently NASA and the Vatican Observatory learned in November that a massive asteroid is about to hit our planet. Soon afterwards, a top-secret UN meeting was convoked to develop a strategy to keep the world calm and give governments the best possible chance of maintaining public order. So they came up with the idea of releasing a coronavirus. Everyone would have to shelter at home. So that's why we are all washing our hands.... and waiting for annihilation.
That does sound a bit far-fetched, to me at least, but how do you deal with other conspiracy theories? The most popular one at the moment is Plandemic, a movie whose teaser has been censored by Google and Facebook. But is censorship the best strategy for dealing with loopy rumours? See below.
However, this particular one is so creative that it deserves to be shared. Apparently NASA and the Vatican Observatory learned in November that a massive asteroid is about to hit our planet. Soon afterwards, a top-secret UN meeting was convoked to develop a strategy to keep the world calm and give governments the best possible chance of maintaining public order. So they came up with the idea of releasing a coronavirus. Everyone would have to shelter at home. So that's why we are all washing our hands.... and waiting for annihilation.
That does sound a bit far-fetched, to me at least, but how do you deal with other conspiracy theories? The most popular one at the moment is Plandemic, a movie whose teaser has been censored by Google and Facebook. But is censorship the best strategy for dealing with loopy rumours? See below.
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | May 16, 2020
Google and Facebook have censored a conspiracy videoby Xavier Symons | May 16, 2020
A group Oxford ethicists say "yes".by Michael Cook | May 16, 2020
It seems to work, but bioethicists have questionsby Michael Cook | May 16, 2020
Hospitals run by the Brothers of Charity are no longer Catholicby Michael Cook | May 16, 2020
Babies on one side of the border; parents on the otherby Michael Cook | May 16, 2020
German Federal Court refuses to endorse the ideaBioEdge
Level 1, 488 Botany Road, Alexandria NSW 2015 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario