Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by andy_ppp 3860 days ago
I'm more frustrated that there wasn't a clear editorial take in the article. I'd like to have seen some research done by the journalist into what the correct ethics are in a situation like this. My feeling is that without the option to have euthanasia (should things get worse) you are promising a tiny tiny chance of a possible cure but a large chance of increased suffering too.

The tiny chance of 40 more years of life might be worth it but its crazy to try experimental treatments as a first roll of the dice!
2 comments
DanBC 3860 days ago
If you like audio there's a BBC Radio Four programme called "Inside the Ethics Committee". They have a bunch of people with real world experience of medical ethics, and they take real events and walk through them, explaining what happens at each step.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007xbtd

It's a surprisingly tough listen. Here's one example of a child with a treatable brain tumour. He didn't like the treatment, and when he got another tumour he decided he didn't want treatment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0643x61

I think it's available to people outside the UK.

link
ScottBurson 3860 days ago
> I'm more frustrated that there wasn't a clear editorial take in the article.

I'm glad there wasn't. I think the issues raised are difficult ones, with no simple, obvious resolution. Sometimes we're better off living with complexity and ambiguity.

link
andy_ppp 3860 days ago
It's not complex at all! The doctor did loads of immoral things and the article sympathised with him.

He even says that he wouldn't attend training because he knows best. After his treatment caused several patients to suffer more or die earlier.

Sometimes we are better off calling bad medical practice illegal and immoral rather than trying to say "whaaaaa it's complicated".

link
ScottBurson 3859 days ago
I don't think it's nearly that black-and-white. The doctor performed a procedure he would have wanted performed on himself in the same (exceedingly desperate) circumstances. He was careful to fully inform the patients of the risks. Above all, he had his patients' welfare at heart; he wasn't doing it for money or fame or even knowledge. What he did may have been illegal, but I don't agree that it was clearly immoral.
link