Is it ever okay to experiment on people if they know the risks and the risks are low?

I watched a movie the other day called Extreme Measures.  *movie spoiler alert*  A famous doctor was taking homeless people and performing experiments on them to find a procedure to allow parapalegics to walk again.  The ethical delimna was whether he should sacrifice these few homeless people in order to help thousands of people who are unable to walk.

It made me think about the issue.  Science sacrifices animals all the time to determine if a medicine or medical procedure is safe and can then be used on humans.  The animals cannot be asked if they wish to be part of the experiments.  But humans can.  The doctor in the movie was obviously wrong in using people without their knowledge.  In the movie, he states that he is rather old and doesn't have time to wait years for experiments on rats and monkeys.

Is it ever okay to experiment on people when the odds of survival are slim to none?

Obviously, taking people, homeless or not, is unethical.  But what if you asked for volunteers?  If you spelled everything out to people and showed them the risks and benefits, to them and humanity, would that be okay?  I am of the mind that if people are in control of their mental faculties, they can make any decision they wish.  If someone asks for volunteers and someone steps forward, they can all sign the appropriate paperwork (and maybe be overseen by a 'oversight committee') then the doctor and volunteer can proceed.  I can imagine there would be a few people who would want to do this.  There are always a few individuals who will volunteer for anything.  But would they get the right kind of people?  Would they get volunteers who fit the criteria they needed?

But what if they can't get enough volunteers?  Maybe the odds of success are too low.  Would it be okay to pay for volunteers?  If people were offered a substantial amount of money, would it be appropriate?  I can certainly see more volunteers stepping forward.  Money can be a strong motivator.  And even if the odds of success are low, the money could be given to their family.  If the volunteer was of sound mind, would this be okay?

I am of the opinion, that if someone is capable of making decisions for themselves, then they can volunteer for any and all procedures that are offered.  But money should probably not enter the equation (maybe living expenses?).  It makes the reasons for volunteering more difficult to ascertain.  And I like the idea of an oversight committee.  A group of medical professionals (and laypersons?) who make sure that what the scientist/doctor is doing needs volunteers and that the volunteers are not being coerced.

The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one.  As long as that one understands the risks involved.

Is that abstract art or a diseased lung?

No later than Oct 22, 2012, all cigarette packages must carry a new graphic on their packaging and in advertising.  The graphics will be of such things as a person smoking with smoke coming out of a hole in their throat or a corpse with their chest stitched up.  These new warnings will help "in protecting our children and the health of the American public.” (HHS)

It's not enough that we have education in schools telling children the dangers.  It's not enough that we have a Sin Tax on cigarettes to dissuade people from smoking.  It's not enough that there are currently warnings on cigarette packages stating things like "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy."

Yes, smoking is dumb.  Yes, smoking makes your breath and clothes smell awful.  Yes, smoking kills people.  But as long as these adults are smoking of their own accord and it doesn't affect others, including children, there should be no laws or taxes to prevent or dissuade them from doing so.

Just one more step down the path of a police state.  Someone doesn't like that you do something they deem offensive, so they do everything legal to get you to stop.  What is the next one?  Photos of auto accidents on alcohol containers?  Cheese packages with photos of clogged arteries?

If people don't know that smoking is bad for you already, looking at a picture of a dying patient won't stop them from picking up the filthy stuff.  They smoke because they want to smoke or because they are addicted.  If they are addicted, and want to stop, they can seek help.  There are plenty of programs around to help smokers quit the disgusting habit (CDC).

Update: Last night as I was reading an Entertainment Weekly magazine, I came across an ad for USA Gold cigarettes (tagline: Your Spirit.  Your Smoke.).  How many children and teenagers will see the forthcoming ads with graphic depictions of dying and dead people?  Is this something you want your child to see?  These won't be 'movie corpses'.  These are real people.

Cigarette Packages in U.S. to Carry Images of Dead Bodies, Diseased Lungs (Bloomberg)

Proposed Cigarette Product Warning Labels (FDA)

Lots of good comments here:  Cigarette Warnings Go Gruesome: Did the Health Police Go Too Far?
Previous post on Sin Tax

Update: I did not realize other countries have photos on their cigarette packaging already. Cigarette Warning Labels: Brazil's More Shocking than Ours (CBSNews)

High heels are BAD!

Let me put this right out front: women's legs look awesome when the woman is wearing high heels.

Having said that, I would be happy to never see another pair of awesome legs if all women would wear shoes that are good for their feet.  Or at least not horrible for their feet.

There are no end of stories and studies to show that wearing high heels are bad for feet and legs.

Why High Heels Hurt Even After You Take Them Off (NPR)
Women's High Heel Shoes Lead To Same Problems As Foot Binding In China (The Fun Times Guide)

But that doesn't mean that wearing flat shoes (flip flops and the like) are good for you: The Worst Shoes for Your Feet (Web MD)

Does it deter women when they hear wearing high heels is bad for them?  Are they second-guessing buying a pair of pumps when they know their feet will hurt?  Do smokers stop smoking when they hear how bad tobacco is for them?  "Some people care more about how a shoe makes them look than how it makes their body feel. In fact, 42% of women say they’d wear shoes that are uncomfortable in order to look more stylish, says an American Podiatric Medical Association study."  (Readers Digest)  The fact that this number is so high is depressing.  The only bright spot is that more than half of those polled said they would NOT wear uncomfortable shoes just to look good.  But that number is not high enough.

So what should women wear?  It depends upon the situation, but generally something with good arch support and well-padded.

Types of Shoes (Become.com)
Selecting Walking Shoes (The Walking Site)

Are 'light cigarettes' better for you? Addicts rationalize 'yes'

The Feds have a new law that disallows tobacco companies from claiming one type of cigarette is 'better' for you than others; or more realistically, 'less bad' for you than others.

A colorful death by tobacco (LA Times)

I am of the opinion that if cigarettes are legal, they should be treated as any other legal product, with the exception that they should not be allowed to be purchased and used by those who are under-age.

However, if a company is claiming that one product is 'better for you' than another, they need to show this. But just because a regular cigarette is bad for you and a light cigarette is 'almost' as bad for you, isn't reason enough to prevent them from marketing them that way.

Companies who manufacture 'organic products' market their products as 'better for you'. And this isn't always the case.

I don't encourage laws that limit what people decide to do, but these organic labels make people who don't investigate to eat more. Organic Labels May Trick Dieters Into Eating More (Live Science). The problem with this article is the 'trick dieters'. People can investigate organic and read labels and make their own decisions. Taking 'organic' at it's word is the consumer's own fault.

People who decide to smoke can decide which cigarette to smoke. If tobacco companies have 'less tar' in one cigarette, they can market it as 'better' for the consumer. It's up to the consumer to make up their own mind. The only reason for the Feds to step in is if the claim is not valid. I don't see any evidence of that in this case.

You want Statins with those Fries?

A proposal in Britain will have free 'statins' available at fast-food restaurants.  Statins help reduce cardiovascular risk and, according to some, are safe, even at high doses.  If I read the article correctly, the statins will be available just like packets of ketchup and salt.  Patrons won't have to ask the clerk for them.

I agree with Dr Rubenfire, in the following article, that patrons will assume they can completely eliminate the risk of unhealthy eating by simply taking the statins.  And they may even 'super-size' their meals.

A Burger, Shake, and Some Statins (MedPageToday)

Information on Statins (MedicineNet)

Dude, you're overweight

If your friend was overweight, so overweight his health was affected, would you tell him? Would you let him know how unhealthy his eating is? Or that he doesn't get enough (any?) exercise? If you did decide to tell him, would he still be your friend?

Obesity is a problem in the U.S. The number of obese children has tripled in the last 25 years (Science Daily).

The Washington Post has a story about a Kentucky town that has double the number of obese people as the national average. They have plenty of fast-food restaurants, but no desire to eat healthier. Is it a problem with Lifestyle? Genetics? Peer pressure? All of the above?

Here is a summary of the article at The Atlantic with a link to the full story. Our Culture of Obesity, Embodied in a Kentucky Town (The Atlantic/Washington Post)

Pink is the new Black

Back when my son was early teens, went went to the park for a family outing. We took an ice chest, soccer ball, a couple of books, and... an old pink blanket to sit on.

My son was mortified.

There was no way he was going to sit on a pink blanket. My wife and I told him it was just a blanket and would keep us from getting grass stains. He wasn't having any of it.

Now that he is over 18, he's better about it, but he would still prefer I bring a blanket of another color.

So a new item brought a smile to my face this morning about a 21-year-old boxer who wears pink.

Boxer takes fight against breast cancer into ring (USA Today)

Breast Cancer Treatment Information (BreastCancer.org)

Nun demoted for approving life-saving abortion

A nun in Phoenix, AZ was demoted and excommunicated for her role in a decision to perform an abortion. The abortion was necessary, according to the hospital ethics committed, of which the nun was a member, because the patient would have died. The patient had pulmonary hypertension which would have been fatal because of the pregnancy.

According to this article, 'the pregnancy carried a nearly certain risk of death for the mother'. Hospital nun rebuked for allowing abortion in Phoenix (USA Today)

More on the story: Phoenix nun and her abortion decision (Arizona Daily Star)

But it is clear the Bishop didn't care about the woman's life. Seems it could have been a 'certain risk' instead of a 'nearly certain risk' and it would still have been sin to perform the abortion.

So the Bishop is saying, in effect, 'it is better to have two people dead, than to have one living because an abortion was performed'. What a crock! The obvious solution is NOT go to go a Catholic hospital for any medical conditions that could be terminal. Or maybe not to go to one at all, just in case things become 'complicated'.

The decision was made with the full cooperation and understanding of the mother. And as long as she is in her 'right mind', that's all that is needed. The Catholic Church be damned!

An opinion via NPR: Sister Margaret McBride: Don't Confess (NPR)

Would you pay more for better medical care?

Most people have medical insurance, pay a premium, usually a co-pay and don't worry about the actual cost of the office visits and procedures.

But what if you could get better care? Would you pay for the visit from your own pocket?

Here is a story of one doctor who was fed up with insurance companies and all of their associated baggage. All transactions are in cash and his patients are quite pleased with the services they receive.

Cash for Doctors (The Weekly Standard)

Would you forgo your medical insurance, pay cash on the spot, for better medical care?