ethical dilemmas

[Guest guest]

From Drexler's Unbounding the Future (1992)

 

" When a new medical technology is discussed today, a frequent comment

is, " This procedure raises ethical questions. " This is often taken as a

signal to delay its use, neglecting such ethical questions as " Is

withholding this lifesaving treatment while we ponder akin to murder? "

When a choice raises ethical questions or throws values into conflict,

it is time to make an ethical decision or to step aside and let others

choose for themselves. Deciding to avoid whatever raised the question

is itself a decision—and often ethically indefensible. New technologies

will face us with uncomfortable decisions, but so does life itself. "

 

It is an interesting point in regard to modern medical technology, but

one that drives much closer to home as well. One of the most

compelling objections typically raised against all forms of alternative

medicine is that it is unethical to use unproven methods in medicine.

While I believe there are other a number of proofs of efficacy besides

(and sometimes better than) controlled double blind research, I also

think there is far more misleading or incorrect information and

unproven claims in the world of CAM than in WM. The thing about WM is

that even if the drug companies dupe us on the frontend, they are

always nailed on the backend when they really screw up. You can fudge

the research that got your drug approved in the first place, but people

start dropping like flies, times up. It is ludicrous to think that

whatever conspiracy their may be amongst pharmaceutical companies that

it successfully envelopes every family physician in the country. No,

research is clear, more than half of physicians still get into it

overwhelmingly to help others. These physicians, who run community

clinics and join doctors without borders are most certainly not in

league with the devil.

 

While CAM in general is widely used, no one form is widely used.

Certainly there have not been enough americans treated in an ongoing

way with any given formula to have had the opportunity for what would

otherwise appear as anomalies mount to create a statistically

significant concern. So the lack of any adverse data would be

construed by many mainstream authorities as meaningless. epidemiology

needs very large numbers to be valid, but then it carries a lot of

weight, far more than most clinical research, IMO. Like the recent

studies that showed HRT was not good for long term use. Its a very

powerful predictor because of the sheer numbers involved. We just

don't have that kind of data. So rather than the pot calling the

kettle black, we need to be as openminded about possible advances in WM

as we want them to be about us. I had a thought while writing an

article about education in TCM. " One can’t help but wonder whether

some of the exciting new advances in western medicine after what had

seemed like decades of more of the same may be in part a reflection of

the coming of age of leading researchers who were part of the first

wave of PBL in WM. " WM has invested a lot of effort in creating

clinicians with problem solving skills over the past 25 years. We

shouldn't be surprised if this has led to a lot of very smart people in

positions of power who can clearly see the errors of the past and also

create a vision for the future. We are just beginning the process of

creating such a foundation of critical thinkers in our own field (how

many other schools use PBL besides PCOM and SIOM??), but it still may

be another 20 years before a similar group of visionaries begins to

drive the agenda.

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

PBL

>>>> what that

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609