When You Don't Really Need an Ethicist: Doctor Tries to Set Patients on Fire

Washington Times quotes George Annas and Bob Veatch on this lovely phenomenon:

"I still can't imagine how someone could justify intentionally trying to set patients on fire," said Robert M. Veatch, professor of medical ethics at Georgetown University and former director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown. "I can't imagine any possible defense. I suppose he could claim he had reason to believe that he couldn't hurt people by trying this and was trying to prove his point," Mr. Veatch said. "I saw nothing in the transcript of the deposition that could justify attempts to intentionally cause a fire," he said.

George Annas, a medical ethicist and chairman of the Department of Health Law, Bioethics and Human Rights at Boston University, said no patients would agree to participate in such an experiment. "I don't know what was on this guy's mind," Mr. Annas said. "There is no patient who would say, 'Sure, you can light me on fire.' "

They struggled really hard to analyze this one.

Negative Results in Evidence Based Medicine: Huh?

Tim Christie writes in the Eugene Register-Guard that Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) has taken full root. Once personal experience, medical authority, or anecdotal evidence were the physicians' bases for a medical decision. With the latest data from randomized controled trials and meta-analyses streaming to their palm pilots, EBM is used by clinicians to make treatment decisions. EBM standards are also used by journals to pick publishable papers and by continuing education programs to teach docs.

And lets not forget about a payers interest in paying for interventions that actually work. Really, isn't this just common sense? Dr. Norman Kahn, of the American Academy of Family Physicians: "Physicians yearn to deliver what works," "So when they learn there is evidence for this vs. no evidence for that, they are rapid adopters."

The missing piece in this account is that sometimes, as we've seen lately, "no evidence" really means "suppressed negative results." - Dominic Sisti

Would You Like a Camcorder with that Pesticide, Son?

The EPA is conducting experiments using pesticide that have raised great concern.

In exchange for participating for two years in the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, which involves infants and children up to age 3, the EPA will give each family using pesticides in their home $970, some children's clothing and a camcorder that parents can keep.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports that the study has been suspended.

Please, Someone, Teach These Journalists?

In the fiftieth poorly-researched assisted reproductive technology piece of the year, New Scientist lets us all in on the big news of the week: the Brits have "applied for a license" for something that is "banned" - yes banned - in the U.S., supposedly: "creating children with three parents." You have to be curious as to whether they just make these little snippets up...three person reproduction isn't banned in any national or even in any state law. The truly interesting thing is that New Scientist was able to miss any of the facts about the multiple egg issues in either the literature or even among those who work on these questions all the time. So get ready for a spate of "three moms" pieces!