Setback in controlling HIV/AIDS

[TaraJo]

[NoraBrimstone]

Oh dear. Well, it's all progress at the end of the day, isn't it? If those two patients are still infected, we can find out what and learn from it. The fact that HIV has gone from a terrifying life-sentence for anyone infected, to an illness that can be managed long-term with medication in such a short space of time is fantastic in itself.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Is it ethical to risk your patients' health for science?

I really don't think it is.

[freedomfromforum]

Is it ethical to risk your patients' health for science?

I really don't think it is.

Who do you think they're "practicing" medicine on?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Is it ethical to risk your patients' health for science?

I really don't think it is.

Who do you think they're "practicing" medicine on?

This isn't malpractice, this is deliberately conducting research that jeopardizes patients' health.

[TaraJo]

Who do you think they're "practicing" medicine on?

This isn't malpractice, this is deliberately conducting research that jeopardizes patients' health.

Having HIV is jeopardizing patints' health. Trying to cure it can greatly benefit their health, not to mention the health of countless other people who can use that treatment to formulate a more successful cure for others.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

This isn't malpractice, this is deliberately conducting research that jeopardizes patients' health.

Having HIV is jeopardizing patints' health. Trying to cure it can greatly benefit their health, not to mention the health of countless other people who can use that treatment to formulate a more successful cure for others.

No I mean having them stop their meds after the bone marrow transplant. The article made it sound like the sole purpose of that decision was to test if the transplant was the cause. They should've played it safe is my point, not the patients, the doctors who were advising the patients.

[TaraJo]

No I mean having them stop their meds after the bone marrow transplant. The article made it sound like the sole purpose of that decision was to test if the transplant was the cause. They should've played it safe is my point, not the patients, the doctors who were advising the patients.

Ah. Gotcha.

But if he doesn't stop taking anti-HIV medication, how are we going to really know if the treatment worked or not?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

No I mean having them stop their meds after the bone marrow transplant. The article made it sound like the sole purpose of that decision was to test if the transplant was the cause. They should've played it safe is my point, not the patients, the doctors who were advising the patients.

Ah. Gotcha.

But if he doesn't stop taking anti-HIV medication, how are we going to really know if the treatment worked or not?

We don't.

But that's the thing, it's unethical to risk patients' health for scientific gains. In medicine the endgame is health, not knowledge, and medical research has to toe this line if it's done on humans.

Of course risks are also taken every time you try a new treatment for research, there's acceptable and unacceptable risks usually determined by an ethics board. Like taking meds off a cancer patient just to have a placebo/control group is not allowed, you have to give them an existing proven to work medication.

I feel like the risks is pretty high in this case, considering it's HIV.

[TaraJo]

But that's the thing, it's unethical to risk patients' health for scientific gains. In medicine the endgame is health, not knowledge, and medical research has to toe this line if it's done on humans.

Of course risks are also taken every time you try a new treatment for research, there's acceptable and unacceptable risks usually determined by an ethics board. Like taking meds off a cancer patient just to have a placebo/control group is not allowed, you have to give them an existing proven to work medication.

I feel like the risks is pretty high in this case, considering it's HIV.

Staying put has risks, too, y'know.