Kim Klausner
Digital Libary Manager

You think Altex represents the medical ethicist point of view? When did the promotion happen?

Seeding trials on un-approved drugs is an will forever remain un-ethical. It impedes the patient’s ability to informed consent and therefore obstructs the patients ability to make appropriately informed decisions on their health care treatment. These patients did not realize that they were taking an un-approved drug,

This is yet another reminder of why I chose to leave this business. Unfortunately quite a few of you “newcomers” seem to be totally inept at reading your moral compass. I invite you to visit this site: http://www.moralcompass.com/index.php Please do us all a favor and click on the “learn more” it would be additionally benefiting to many of us if you would take the free self assessment test.

This type of seeding trial breeds miss trust - the PERFECT STORM…

Well, I guess this moves us beyond the buffoon caricature (not Atlex’s) and into something that is, indeed, more nuanced.

I know, but since you raised the topic and it’s on this site, I figured some people may want to know what I do or how I go about things. So I’m happy to provide insights if it’s somehow helpful.

Best
ed

I think you know my comment wasn’t directed at you. And, ultimately, having heard Caplan in an open forum, I think his opinions are well-thought out and, most often, quite nuanced (as ethical discussions tend to be). Thus, in many cases his statements tend to get shortened to a pithy condemnation that probably doesn’t reflect the full extent of his opinion.

Atlex

I understand your point, but can’t really speak for other journalists, in so far as I’ve not been privvy to their conversations.

As to me, I’ve included comments that, I thought and hoped, shed light on whatever issue I was probing. And I’ve tried to use whatever remarks were then appropriate. Ethics discussions can be slippery sometimes. But my reason for calling an ethicist, Caplan or someone else, is because I think there may be an ethical issue. Maybe they agree - based on what I present them (if they’re not familiar with the subject) - or maybe they don’t. Or maybe there are shadings in between. I try to include remarks - from any source - that I think will help readers/viewers.

Again, I can’t speak for other journalists, although I do know that accessibility is important, and not only on deadline (if only most people understood this point). But as I indicated earlier, I agree that a wide mix of experts or expert views is good to have, and I’ll keep that in mind myself.

Cheers

Your statement regarding Caplan may indeed be true, but in those cases where he doesn’t confirm a (lazy) journalist’s predisposed opinion regarding the ethics of a situation, his opinion is usually left out. Maybe I’m mistaken, but if you Google his quotes from the general press, almost all contain the same type of statement(although some do have longer discussions). Again, that doesn’t mean he is wrong (or right), but each of these types of stories seem to have the same pattern. That leaves one to at least consider that he is a “dial-a-quote” like Sydney Wolfe.

Atlex

That was my point - that the conspiracy theory doesn’t work very well when you have so many “conspirators” from otherwise very different worlds.

For the record, I’ve contacted U Penn’s Art Caplan many times over the years and he hasn’t always confirmed for me that a particular situation has an ethical issue, at least in his view. In other words, it’s not the dial-a-quote situation inferred here.

Why does the media contact him as often as it does? Usually, he’s accessible and he takes the time to walk through situations. That can be very helpful. Of course, there’s nothing to say other ethicists can’t or shouldn’t be contacted. I agree that including a mix of views is a good thing.

I’m not writing this, by the way, because I belong to his fan club, or anyone’s fan club. I just thought I’d share one journalist’s thought after reading the comments.

Regards
ed