Author Topic: AIDs article about mother to baby transmission... (Read 229 times)

lasersailor184 · « **on:** January 31, 2005, 04:47:36 AM »

I picked out a sentence that incredibly appaled me. See if you can figure out what it was:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/nyregion/30aids.html?ei=5065&en=5e8876f16501e60b&ex=1107666000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=

Chortle · « **Reply #1 on:** January 31, 2005, 05:38:47 AM »

Quote

"We're not legally able to collect that information, and even if we were, New York State law would prevent us from using this data to improve patient outcomes," he said, referring to state privacy laws.

What do I win?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 31, 2005, 11:55:09 AM »

Quote

Doctors suspected that AZT could be effective at reducing the presence of the virus in the bloodstream and significantly decreasing the chances of transmission, but there was reluctance to give the drug to pregnant women. Eventually, faced with thousands of sick babies, the National Institutes of Health allowed a test in which some mothers were given a course of AZT and others were given a placebo. Public health officials anxiously awaited the results.

They gave a placebo to women who had HIV with a high risk of transfering it to the kid...

Wolfala · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2005, 02:14:23 AM »

OK - I find this worthy of tossing the dick off the Brooklyn Bridge.

Chortle · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:23:06 AM »

Thats medicine for you. A previous study has linked AZT given to pregnant women with birth deffects so I can understand their reluctance to prescribe it. It may be the case in a few years they'll be testing the non HIV children for side effects.

Its a crappy situation but what else can they do?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:52:03 AM »

They told some mothers that they were giving her medicine to stop the transfer of AIDs to her kid but gave her a placebo!

You know how sick and twisted that is?

Rasker · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:55:46 AM »

Usually they will pull the plug on the experiment once solid proof of effectiveness has been produced, and put the placebo folks on the medicine.

Chortle · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2005, 08:13:21 AM »

I'm not 100% sure but here in the UK its a legal requirement that you sign a consent form before taking part in a trial which should explain the whole thing, i.e. you could be part of a control group given a placebo.

In this case, if they told mothers they would definitely be recieving drugs then yeah, it's not only morally dubious but I'd hope illegal.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 01, 2005, 08:14:13 AM »

The expirament was over once the baby was born...

stegor · « **Reply #9 on:** February 01, 2005, 08:49:17 AM »

You forgot this

Quote

Moving with unusual speed, the federal government immediately allowed the women in the study group who had been taking placebos to switch to AZT, Dr. Mofenson said, and the babies born to those mothers also had a lower H.I.V. infection rate. Soon, women across the country were being treated.

Every clinical study, in placebo double-blind or in open , needs that the patient is informed of his partecipatiion. Thats mandatory.

If the study is a double- blind vs placebo the patient will take a pill not knowing if that is a pacedo or the real drug ( even the phisician is not allowed to know if he is giving drug or placebo); anyway he/she is informed of the rules of partecipation.