*new* 12 Feb Conjoined Twins
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDuIzpU9W_Bk%26feature%3Dchannel_video_title&feature=channel_video_title&v=DuIzpU9W_Bk&gl=US
8 Feb Support Wanes in Africa for Female Circumcision
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/02/female-genital-cutting-africa.html
Re: discussion of sperm donation and children who might be related to each other.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.9/full
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/amelia-rivera-mentally-disabled-denied-kidney-transplant-childrens/story?id=15378575#.TxuOoJh8vdk
ReplyDeleteHere is the article I talked about in class about the little girl who needs a transplant to survive, but the hospital will not give her one.
I think it is completely wrong for this hospital to deny her the transplant. I understand that there may be a list of other children who need the same kind of transplant, but this little girl should be given the same opportunity as all other children, despite her disabilities. I think it's unethical to tell her parents they cannot give her the transplant because of her mental retardation.
DeleteThis story is very sad to me. I also think that it is completely wrong for the hospital to deny the little girl a kidney transplant. I thought it was interesting that they said they do not discriminate against children with mental disabilities and have done transplant surgeries on children with physical/mental disabilities before but denied this child. Members of the family were also offering to be a donor for her, but still denied the surgery. I do not understand the reasoning as to why she cannot receive a kidney, because without it she will die.
DeleteI completely agree. Such a refusal of treatment suggests that they believe individuals with mental or physical disabilities to be less valuable and deserve less respect than the "normal" members of society. If people are given worth based on their abilities then many members of society (the handicapped, the young, the elderly, etc.) would be in serious trouble.
DeleteI agree. I don't think that it is right to not allow the child to get a kidney transplant because she has a mental disease. I also don't understand the reasoning that the hospital had with not allowing the child to have the transplant considering her family members were will to contribute their kidney. If hospitals continue to discriminate based on mental diseases, then the future of society is in trouble.
DeleteHere's some more discussion:
Deletehttp://www.thekidneydoctor.org/2012/01/transplant-unplugged-should-mentally.html
My only comment to add after reading the above article is that quality of life is not determined by length of life. Some people live to be 100 but do not have as much of a positive impact as those who live to be 20. Just because the odds are that she will die sooner than other transplant patients does not make her a less worth patient.
DeleteThis is heart breaking and outrageous!! She is still a human being, someone's child and her disorder does not make her any less deserving of a kidney than any other person on that list. I read about Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome and my understanding is that she CAN live till adulthood. They are basing their decision on a possibility!! And changing the wording from "mental retardation" to "she has a cascading syndrome that will shorten and limit her life" to me does not justify their decision. Any other kid that starts out healthier can get the kidney has the possibility of dying in a MVA but does that mean they should be denied a kidney?
DeleteThis is from a Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome website: "It has been estimated that approximately 35% of individuals who have WHS die within the first two years of life. Many individuals who have WHS survive to adulthood. Universally, children with WHS have severe or profound developmental delays, however, there are many affected individuals who are able to walk and some that are able to talk in short sentences. It is evident that many patients seem to proceed farther than was previously thought possible. The actual lifespan for individuals who have WHS is unknown, although there are several individuals who have WHS who are in their 20–40s."
P.S. I think we should sign the petition they have out there for her :)
Diddo to Fatmah's sentiments. Also, I find it even harder to defend the decision not to implant the kindey if a family member provides it because in that case, you aren't taking away the opportunity of another child to get the kidney.
DeleteKickbacks to Doctors:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/opinion/who-else-is-paying-your-doctor.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211
Accepting meals as a gift or an appreciation is one thing but getting cash payments is a little too much. Don't they get paid enough? Hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars a year. It should be required to be posted online, its not fair to the patients if a Doctor is endorsing one drug over another just because of the cash he's getting. I am pretty sure the patient isnt getting any percentage of that.
ReplyDeleteIt's about time that there is some way to know which medicines doctors are getting paid to reccomend to the patient. Here is a line from the hippocratic oath that doctors take: I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment... So doctors take an oath to help patients and provide necessary care to them to help them overcome their illness. They don't take an oath to receive bribes to perscribe medication that can be harmful to the patients health. This type of corruption goes on in most businesses and areas of life, but when it comes to your health and well-being shouldn't those that take an oath fulfill their duty to your health by telling you what is best for you? Those that stray from the hippocratic oath should be punished accordingly. Perhaps by taking all of the wrongfully perscribed medication they perscribed to patients. An eye for an eye.
ReplyDeleteMoney given to get the doctor to endorse a certain drug should be posted so the patients can see. If a patient could use a better drug or a cheaper drug to do a better job, but the doctor prescribes one that he is getting paid by the company to give to his patients he is really not looking out for the best intrest of the patient, rather looking out for his wallet and bank account.
ReplyDeleteWhen I hear this story I instantly think about someone who either sells sale phones or works at a shoe store. You go through the usually procedure at checkout do you want to purchase in shoe protector today sir? Everyone knows that these people are being paid on commission so the simple yes will boost their sales for the week. However, this is not the case these are vulnerable individuals who looks to a doctor not as a salesperson but someone they can trust. In many ways this takes a lot out of the patient doctor trust and relationship. It’s not right to not considering or even having these drugs posted so a patient can at least think that maybe he has different reason for recommending and people able to make the decision from there.
ReplyDeleteThis is what really gets me. There are those doctors that do get kickbacks and are acting immorally (in my opinion) as doctors, but there are also the doctors that genuinely believe that certain products can really help people more than others. Like Latonio said, it really hits at the patient-doctor trust relationship, but it almost isn't even on an individual basis any longer. And it sucks that all doctors need to be sanctioned and regulated even if there are some really genuine doctors out there.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is, you know some doctors simply promote goods for the commission they receive, and those doctors may have been individually known and criticized in the past. Now, however, these doctors are tainting the name of our entire health care system. It isn't "oh, don't go to Dr. So-and-So, he will push Brand X until you buy it." It is now "Oh our entire health care system is a huge money-suck. Don't go unless you have to. All facilities/doctors over-prescribe Brand X just to get a bigger paycheck." It is tainting the name of all doctors and other health care professionals around our country, good or bad.
As a solution, I believe that if doctors DO endorse a certain drug (paid or not), they should definitely give at least a certain number of alternatives, from all price ranges, even if they don't endorse those other drugs. No one drug should be promoted more than another, and patients should be fully informed of whether their doctors are getting paid or not.
Paying doctors to prescribe and recommend a certain medication is absolutely wrong. Doctors should have their patients well-being as their upmost concern. Incentives such as this should not even be available to medical staff. They are not salespersons and have peoples lives in their hands. When prescribing a medication they should consider what is best for their patient not about how much they can earn by giving a medication that may not be the best for their patients health. I support the fact that patients can now be fully informed wether or not their doctor is being paid to promote certain drugs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caitlin paying doctors to recommend medications is absolutely wrong. Doctor's should prescribe medications based on what they think is best for the patient and not what incentives they will get for prescribing a certain medication.
ReplyDeleteThis is kinda unrelated but I found this while being unproductive and I thought it would be a good thing for everyone to think about: "Today, I interviewed a woman who is terminally ill. “So,” I tried to delicately ask, 'What is it like to wake up every morning and know that you are dying?' 'Well,' she responded, 'What is it like to wake up every morning and pretend that you are not?'"
ReplyDeleteNow going back to the matter at hand, I agree with everyone that doctors should not be allowed to accept any compensation for selling certain medicine over another. However, I don't think there is any problem with doctors prescribing the most expensive drugs as long as they are willing to prescribe something of a lower price if the patient asks. I sympathize with the companies that are trying to get their product sold because essentially, the company put a lot of money into researching and creating the medicine. They want to be compensated for all their hard work and cannot compete with the lower prices of the generic brands. This does not mean that it is right for them to bribe doctors, but they should be able to encourage doctors to prescribe their medication since it was that company that provided the treatment in the first place.
ReplyDelete