Dangerous Woo Doesn't Work

[wrighty]

Consequentialist probably, if it's even a word.

 

So you are saying, if a surgeon attempts to save a life by cutting out a cancer or whatever, but the outcome of the operation is death due to an unforseen (but not impossible) complication, then that surgeon should be held to account, even though his motives were just and he was not in any way incompetent? In that case we'd probably all give up operating on anything. I know nothing about philosophy, but I seem to prefer Kant's view.

[Chinahand]

Wighty, as ever you raise interesting points. You can read about Consequentialism here - I did get my spelling wrong - the rival, Kantian theory is deontological ethics.

If a surgeon operates in good faith and somebody dies what should happen? Is the good motive enough, or should note be taken of the skills, efforts and consequences of what the surgeon has done. Is the motive enough? You specifically say he was not in any way incompetent, but isn't that begging the question. I agree if there is no incompetence the ethical issues are slight - consent leaps out to me as the most obvious one.

Surely the question to be asked is what if the surgeon was unreasonably unrealistic in her expectations etc.

 

Motive is really important, and I agree if it was found the surgeon competently acted in good faith after realistically informing the patient of the consequences of the operation the ethical issues don't seem to me to be too troubling even if an unexpected, and hence un-informed complication arises.

 

But as far as I am concerned this presumes the ethical issues in advance. They are the things which would be investigated before saying whether the surgeon acted "properly" or not.

[Max Power]

The fraudster aside, how on earth did anyone get to the point of buying these devices without proving their effectiveness? There has been a huge crime of negligence committed by the procuring authorities.

[wrighty]

The fraudster aside, how on earth did anyone get to the point of buying these devices without proving their effectiveness? There has been a huge crime of negligence committed by the procuring authorities.

I agree. I knew nothing of this case until a couple of days ago, but from what I can see, the detecting device consists of an extendible aerial mounted on some sort of swivel attachment, and is not connected to anything at all. If someone senior in government was responsible for procuring these devices they should take some responsibility for their actions. If the hospital pharmacy purchased some 'snake oil' for us to treat cancer with I hope they'd be held accountable at least for budgetry irresponsibility.

[wrighty]

 

If a surgeon operates in good faith and somebody dies what should happen? Is the good motive enough, or should note be taken of the skills, efforts and consequences of what the surgeon has done. Is the motive enough? You specifically say he was not in any way incompetent, but isn't that begging the question. I agree if there is no incompetence the ethical issues are slight - consent leaps out to me as the most obvious one.

 

Surely the question to be asked is what if the surgeon was unreasonably unrealistic in her expectations etc.

 

Motive is really important, and I agree if it was found the surgeon competently acted in good faith after realistically informing the patient of the consequences of the operation the ethical issues don't seem to me to be too troubling even if an unexpected, and hence un-informed complication arises.

 

 

 

 

The philosophy behind surgical consent is a huge topic. Surgeons are like drivers in that they all feel they are right, and that there are 2 other groups of surgeons other than themselves; those that are reckless and those that too conservative. The reality is that there is a spectrum of opinion, and it's probably best not to be towards one extreme or the other.

 

I've had one patient who would benefit from an operation, but who would probably die as a result of the anaesthetic/stress of surgery. Philosophically I was all for giving him/her a chance, but my anaesthetic colleague thought it all too dangerous so we didn't go ahead. I've also had a patient die suddenly a few days after successful surgery, for reasons unconnected with the surgery. Probably wouldn't have happened if it were not for the stress of the procedure, so should I and the anaesthetist be held responsible?

 

I tell everyone undergoing major surgery that there is a risk of serious complication, including death. Joint replacement is usually carried out in patients over the age of 70. If you get 100 septagenarians in a room together, there is a small but not insignificant risk that one of them won't last the night, so it's not entirely surprising that every so often I'll lose a patient within a day or so of major surgery. Having said that, even if I'd warned them of the possibility, a death rate of more than 1% in the surgery I do would be unacceptable and possibly a sign of poor surgery/poor anaesthesia/poor judgement - consent is not an excuse for negligence.

 

We are heading towards individual surgeon outcomes publication. I've no objection to this in principle, but it will inevitably lead to less risk taking and more patients who could benefit from surgery not being given a chance. This is, post Staffordshire, what the public want apparently.

[2thumbs]

[Chinahand]

McCormick has been jailed for 10 years for fraudulently selling his so called bomb detectors.

 

Good.

 

Link

[ScotsAlan]

I was just about to post that China... :-)

 

I wonder if they will now go after the people who possibly took bribes to buy his device.

 

That's the only way it can be explained that people bought it.

 

As a matter of interest.... anyone remember the guy who was setting up a factory making "Golf ball finders" up by B&Q?

 

Did that factory ever happen? Is it still there? This is going back maybe 7 years.

[loaf]

Instead of a custodial sentence, perhaps he should be airlifted to a minefield, given one of his own bomb detectors and given the chance to find his own way back to safety.

[Albert Tatlock]

I'm busy marketing my 'Pertinculating Combobulator' to the DED at the moment. It's a business recovery device, guaranteed to get companies out of debt.

 

Whilst it may look like an empty tic-tac box with three jelly beans in it, it does work, and I have proof. I walked it through John Lewis to test it out late last year, and last christmas all the workers there ended up with a bonus each!

 

The DED have already agreed to a full test this weekend, where they have invited me to stay at the Sefton for an all expenses paid weekend to demonstrate it.

[Chinahand]

More dangerous woo that doesn't work.

Astrology-loving MP seeks health answers in the stars

A Conservative MP has spoken of his belief in astrology and his desire to incorporate it into medicine.
David Tredinnick said he had spent 20 years studying astrology and healthcare and was convinced it could work.
The MP for Bosworth, a member of the health committee and the science and technology committee, said he was not afraid of ridicule or abuse.
"There is no logic in attacking something that has a proven track record," he told BBC News.

 

Oh goodness, someone who has no understanding of the difference between correlation and causation, has no understanding of the placebo effect and has no understanding of the natural cycle of healing - you often take a medicine when feeling the worst which is when your body is fighting hardest to get you better; a few days later you are starting to recover and feel better: this can have little to do with the medicine and a lot to do with natural recovery, your body has beaten the infection etc, but you correlate the recovery with the medicine. You need to do controlled double blind experiments to tease these effects apart.

 

No doubt millions of people suffer a complaint, take a quack cure, and feel better. That does not mean the quack cure contributed to this, nor that it is a cost effective solution - a sugar pill, or even nothing at all, would be just as effective.

 

Heck a part of me says they should offer homeopathy on the NHS, with an extra high prescription charge. They could then cheaply manufacture sugar pills and potions at a vast profit to help the NHS raise money.

 

But guess what - that's unethical, because if you did proper statistically robust controlled, blinded testing you'd discover you weren't doing anything other than taking money off the misinformed.

 

Mr Tredinnick MP needs to understand some basic ideas of medicine and science rather than jump up and down about the power of the stars.

[Chinahand]

Strange - the post above hasn't moved this topic up into the "New Content" List.

 

Giving it a bump to see if a second "New Post" will do anything?!

[Lxxx]

I am absoultely delighted that the owner of the company that sells this bogus woo has been arrested for fraud.

 

Hundreds of lives has been lost as a result of the devices he has sold not performing as he has claimed they are able to.

 

I really really hope this is done properly with a genuine double blind test large enough to clearly show whether these devices can perform better than guessing.

 

And as a result he gets the book thrown at him.

 

In the bigger scheme of things....does this REALLY delight you? Is there really not much else going on that grabs your attention than dodgy dowsing rods and their effectiveness in locating landmines?

[Lxxx]

More dangerous woo that doesn't work.

 

Astrology-loving MP seeks health answers in the stars

 

A Conservative MP has spoken of his belief in astrology and his desire to incorporate it into medicine.

David Tredinnick said he had spent 20 years studying astrology and healthcare and was convinced it could work.

The MP for Bosworth, a member of the health committee and the science and technology committee, said he was not afraid of ridicule or abuse.

"There is no logic in attacking something that has a proven track record," he told BBC News.

 

 

Oh goodness, someone who has no understanding of the difference between correlation and causation, has no understanding of the placebo effect and has no understanding of the natural cycle of healing - you often take a medicine when feeling the worst which is when your body is fighting hardest to get you better; a few days later you are starting to recover and feel better: this can have little to do with the medicine and a lot to do with natural recovery, your body has beaten the infection etc, but you correlate the recovery with the medicine. You need to do controlled double blind experiments to tease these effects apart.

 

No doubt millions of people suffer a complaint, take a quack cure, and feel better. That does not mean the quack cure contributed to this, nor that it is a cost effective solution - a sugar pill, or even nothing at all, would be just as effective.

 

Heck a part of me says they should offer homeopathy on the NHS, with an extra high prescription charge. They could then cheaply manufacture sugar pills and potions at a vast profit to help the NHS raise money.

 

But guess what - that's unethical, because if you did proper statistically robust controlled, blinded testing you'd discover you weren't doing anything other than taking money off the misinformed.

 

Mr Tredinnick MP needs to understand some basic ideas of medicine and science rather than jump up and down about the power of the stars.

 

Give it a rest man. We get you hate anything that doesn't have a double blind study with numerous experiments. However some people clearly do and for them, it works, as the mind is a very powerful tool so live and let live and go and have a beer.

[Bobbie Bobster]

Yeah, what has the scientific method ever done for us?