Drs. J. Paul Muizelaar and Rudolph J. Schrot create sepsis in terminal patients

believe09

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
28,094
Reaction score
471
http://news.yahoo.com/2-uc-davis-su...uman-research-200838532--abc-news-health.html

The FDA has banned these two from conducting human research....research that the physicians characterized as "innovative new treatment for brain tumors."

I had to read this article twice.

They have jeopardized the federal funding for the school with this maverick approach-they injected bacteria into the head wounds of terminally ill patients (the patients permitted it) in the hopes of creating a bacterial infection that would cause the patients to live longer.

Surprise surprise, two of the patients died of sepsis.

I have no medical training, but even I can see that this is a bad idea. And I wonder how competent patients are with brain tumors who are so far along in their march towards death that they would permit their bodies to be used in this fashion.

The surgeons said they were given consent by three terminal patients with glioblastomas, tumors that arise from the supportive tissue of the brain, to insert bacteria into their head wounds. The doctors believed the bacteria would create a postoperative infection that could help the patients live longer, according to documents included in the letter to the FDA.
These physicians claim that it wasnt human research, it was treatment. This does not pass the smell test for me, but again no medical training here.

Muizelaar was ordered to hand off his clinical investigations, while Schrot was required to take the FDA's Clinical Investigator Training Course "to assure he possesses requisite knowledge to perform future studies, if and as permitted," the letter stated.
That's it. No sanctions, no license review. HUH?
 
If I had a glio, I might consent to something like that. There is no surviving a glioblastoma. It sucks, but that's it. No cure, no real remission. Knowing that, I'd take palliative treatment to stay around as long as possible, then when it was nearing the end, I'd tell them to have at it. Maybe something would work or something will fail, either way, the findings could pave the way for someone else down the road to benefit from it. Of course, I'm saying this glioblastoma-free. Might feel different if it were me, but those patients didn't.
 
If I had a glio, I might consent to something like that. There is no surviving a glioblastoma. It sucks, but that's it. No cure, no real remission. Knowing that, I'd take palliative treatment to stay around as long as possible, then when it was nearing the end, I'd tell them to have at it. Maybe something would work or something will fail, either way, the findings could pave the way for someone else down the road to benefit from it. Of course, I'm saying this glioblastoma-free. Might feel different if it were me, but those patients didn't.

Is dying from sepsis preferable? I am not being sarcastic at all-I havent had either experience...the tumor or sepsis that is.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I certainly appreciate believe's concern and the slope here is obviously slippery; but I tend to think like Mayra: if I were that far gone, I too would give consent even if the odds were against me. (Even though the experiment seems to have failed in at least two out of three cases, that doesn't mean the doctors didn't learn something of value.)

I have a friend who is a professional fundraiser for that institution. I'll let the dust settle and then ask for his insight.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
939
Total visitors
1,100

Forum statistics

Threads
589,935
Messages
17,927,866
Members
228,005
Latest member
vigilandy
Back
Top