Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Tourist Dies From Treatment In Thailand
An anonymous reader writes "Last week, news that Costa Rica was shutting down a large stem cell clinic sparked a debate here on Slashdot about whether patients should be allowed to take the risks that come with untested treatments. Now comes news of what can happen when patients go looking for a shortcut. A patient suffering from an autoimmune disease that was destroying her kidneys went to a Bangkok clinic, where doctors injected her own adult stem cells into her kidneys. Now she's dead, and a postmortem revealed that the sites of injection had weird growths — 'tangled mixtures of blood vessels and bone marrow cells.' Researchers say the treatment almost certainly killed her."
You assume she knew the risks, when it's very possible the scientists themselves didn't understand all of the risks. They also may not have disclosed the known risks.
You see? This is the reality of our time. Ignorance and stupidity prevents science from advancing proper. Instead people have to go to dodgy places to get some form of treatment often provided by complete shams.
None of this would be happening if working with stem cells and bioengineering proper was legalized at large.
For example, I have terminal cancer, although for now I feel fine. The doctors know that none of the FDA approved treatments will stop the cancer, the best they can do is slow it down some. If I saw a treatment that had a high risk of killing me, but a decent chance it would cure me, I'd go for it, even knowing it might kill me.
When you have different groups advertising conflicting "scientific" results for their own interests, it is no wonder the layman doesn't believe in science anymore. Burn the businessmen!
Eggs have less cholesterol than previously thought! We both know the world is and isn't global warming. We are/aren't on the verge of running out of oil. We have conclusive evidence that cell phones do and don't cause cancer. Pluto is no longer a planet! This is the face of science to many people.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
I'm a physician (I know, easy for an AC to say). There is nothing in the linked article to suggest that the treatment was directly linked to her death. It may or may not have contributed to her eventual renal failure but there are an untold number of people out there with nonfunctioning kidneys living for years on dialysis. Unusual tumors localized to the kidneys don't kill people. While I don't encourage patients to pursue treatments lacking in evidence of safety and efficacy, this article is just meant to spread FUD.
You appear to be advocating "protecting terminally ill patients from themselves". Seeing as how they are already terminally ill that seems just a bit silly. Who better to experiment on than a terminally patient with nothing to lose who is willing to give it a shot?
Our health care choices are already far too restricted -- ever notice how the word "prescription", which actually means "recommendation" is used as if it means "license"? If you need a substance but the witch doctors who represent Big Pharma say you don't you can be imprisoned for posessing it -- now that's real insanity!
Caveat Utilitor
Gee, I think she died of freedom of choice.
Researchers say the treatment almost certainly killed her
And, without treatment? Nature would have taken it's course... I'd say let people try what they want (assuming the treatment is not a total scam.)
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing. - Redd Foxx
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
You assume she knew the risks, when it's very possible the scientists themselves didn't understand all of the risks. They also may not have disclosed the known risks.
Welcome to the concept of 'experimental' treatment. It means they don't know exactly what it will do or all the possible risks. As TFA states the problem being 'A woman with kidney disease has died after receiving an experimental stem cell treatment... sparked lively debates around the Internet about whether patients should be able to willingly take on risks associated with experimental treatments.' I say let them if they know its experimental (and what experimental entails). If someone has something incurable that can either disable/cause death in the short term then they might be willing to try something experimental as it's at least a hope for something instead of just sitting there and either watching life pass them by/waiting to die. Best case they are part of finding out the cure, worst case they die and we learn why and they knew that death was a very possible answer.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
I'd guess risk is a easier thing to shrug off if you're knocking on deaths door and nobody in your home country is allowed to try anything to stop it for another 43 years of review and trials.
When one has a disease that one *knows* is going to kill you, and soon, where's the risk in trying unproven treatments? Whether the researchers knew or disclosed all of the risks is ultimately irrelevant in this case. If I were in her shoes and the researchers told me that the treatment had a 90% chance of killing me after it was applied, when I knew I was going to die in a matter of weeks or months anyway, I would make the same choice. Some chance is better than none at all.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
What's interesting is how you extol the virtues of tai chi as a form of detox, and then go on to talk about "crazy biopirates" in the same breath.
What's interesting is how you are devious enough in trying to find a logical flaw where there is none. Tai chi, Yoga and other form of slow-mo exercises are good for dealing with impaired motor skills. That you assumed he was talking about esoteric hocus pocus says more about yourself than the poster.
Someone with an otherwise certainly terminal illness took a chance on experimental treatment, that ended up killing them.
And WHAT is wrong with this?
It's bad enough when people want to be my mom when I prefer to volunteer on unnecessary risks, but in cases like this leave them alone. sheesh. Like you'd prefer to force them to sit at home and die. What's it to you, and what gives you the right?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
You appear to be advocating "protecting terminally ill patients from themselves". Seeing as how they are already terminally ill that seems just a bit silly. Who better to experiment on than a terminally patient with nothing to lose who is willing to give it a shot?
Why is it silly? Even if someone is terminally ill, there's a duty to try to extended a quality life for them. Even terminally ill patients that opt for medical trials are given state of the art care. They're not given placebo or Formula-409. They're given best-treatment-plus-placebo or best-treatment-plus-Forumula-409. What you're arguing for is the recklessness and effectiveness of snake oil salesmen, homeopathy, and herbal supplements. ("If Extenze didn't do something amazing could we afford to give it away?" Well yes. Your costs would be negligible. Sales do not necessarily correlate with efficacy.)
Our health care choices are already far too restricted -- ever notice how the word "prescription", which actually means "recommendation" is used as if it means "license"? If you need a substance but the witch doctors who represent Big Pharma say you don't you can be imprisoned for posessing it -- now that's real insanity!
Well no. Given that serious risks and side effects involved, there's no reason why a untrained person, especially an fool that believes that their lack expertise and training means they know better than experts should treat themselves. If you want to do that, by all means, cure your infections with a big swig of bleach or some other antibacterial cleaner.
I'm not knocking medical care in Thailand, but there is a difference between "quality medical care" and "bleeding edge treatments." It's entirely possible to be good at the former but not good at the latter.