This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 30, 2006 11:44 AM. The previous post in this blog was More from Saltzman's smoke-filled room. The next post in this blog is Quotation of the Month. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, October 30, 2006

Another reason to mistrust OHSU

Human experimentation without consent. I guess I wasn't kidding when I said we all need one of these.

Comments (7)

Wasn't this done in another city? I seem to remember reading about it awhile back... I would think that this would bring about lawsuits...depending on how the patient recovered. If I were the patient...and they did some experimentation on me in a trauma situation...I'd be pissed.

Sure, it won't bring about lawsuits... because patients won't know they've even participated in a study. If patients aren't notified beforehand then why should we expect OHSU to inform them afterwards?

I heard about this the other day on OPB radio and it made me wonder about all of the other experiments they're probably doing that will never see the light of day...

Sign me up for one of those bracelets -- not the "no study" one offered in the article but Jack's "Don't take me to OHSU" edition.

This was a pretty good item, Jack.

So in the tri-county area...

If you’re suffering severe shock or a brain injury, the paramedics will give you...

This means the company whose's paramedics "cleared" Mr. Chasse for jail will now soon be having it's paramedics plugging in saline solutions to those in shock or suffering from head injury and taking them to a hospital. Makes me wonder if Mr. Chasse would have qualified as an experimental subject or not. More than a little irony here for my taste.

This raises an immediate conflict for them. If they come across a police detainee in shock or with head trauma how will they decide whether to meet their polic/forensic obligations to clear them for jail, whether to meet their contractual (I presume) obligations to the experimenter, or whether to perhaps meet their independent moral and clinical obligations and just take accident victims shock/trauma patients to a hospital? Oops! Exactly which hospital should that be?

Incidentally, the study strikes me as less than pathophysiologically trivial. If tight junctions and the blood-brain barrier of shock-trauma tissue are intact, I can see that hypertonic solution might temporarily suck fluid and thus pressure from the area. If not intact, wouldn't the same tissue be flooded with salt and fluid...not good. Makes me curious what risks were stated when the community surveys were done.

Jack, we posted this on the 23rd on the Metroblog...

And it was on OPB before that.

What number do I call to get YOUR opt-out bracelet? (:

The Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association voted to support this program. So, there has been a public airing of sorts - if you were in the right place at the right time.

You can do what I've done. Call OHSU (503-494-7015) and get an opt-out bracelet. I've done this, not because of the experiment, but because I choose not to live with a brain injury. I've also asked OHSU for original research materials, so that I might assure myself that my decision is an informed choice.

I'm a bicyclist. Last year I was hit by a car and severely injured. I had many broken bones, but only my helmet (not my head) was split through the center and crushed in the back. If you’re a bicyclist and you don't wear a helmet, you have a good chance for a head injury. And, you'll probably be a participant in this study.

Do I think this study is good or bad; I don’t know. But, I have a problem with the concept of “if you don’t opt-out, your in”. Still, keep in mind that this is accepted practice by your credit card companies, banks, and etc. Hey, this is America not Iraq; we’re a democracy.

What you all are talking about is a test of "hypertonic" IV solutions (means there's more than the usual amount of salt in it). They're testing this for a good reason. It shows significant problem of saving lives in trauma situations.

Here's the problem: there is no way to test this except how they're doing it. Someone's lying in the road in a pool of blood, unconscious. The ambulance shows up. They've got to get that IV going right now. Can't get consent from the victim (unconscious). No time to find a relative. No way to test this promising new idea unless they can test it right there.

So, all of you who are opposed to this: do you want to toss this promising new idea just because it can't be done the way you want it to be done? The ethics committees all looked at this situation and decided in favor of the clinical study. I agree with them.

Sorry for error, should have been "shows significant promise.

Clicky Web Analytics