Via “Jeremy Freese”:http://jeremyfreese.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-get-help-when-you-can-help-science.html, a poster for a Mass General Hospital study. As Jeremy says,
Do you have not one, but two separate problems that are associated with making bad decisions? If so, why don’t you choose to have a 50% chance of forgoing treatment for both for three months, in exchange for _$600_?… Don’t worry: you can rest assured you’ll be in the most capable, professional hands — just look at the quality of our graphic design! Yes, that’s a picture of a human brain we got off the web, with a martini glass superimposed on top of it. And, see, there’s a photo of an anguished woman, just below a photo of a cartoon man so excited he’s raising his arms with glee.
This reminds me of one of my favorite books, encountered during research for Last Best Gifts: Ed Brassard’s Body For Sale: An Inside Look At Medical Research, Drug Testing, And Organ Transplants And How You Can Profit From Them. This is a how-to guide for selling the renewable and non-renewable bits of yourself and also for getting accepted into paying clinical trials of all kinds.
{ 19 comments }
bza 11.27.06 at 6:26 pm
The snark seems a little unfair. The people who are going to end up in this study are people who aren’t already receiving treatment for their condition. When it comes to behavioral health, clinical trials are in fact a major source of treatment for the uninsured and underinsured.
Kieran Healy 11.27.06 at 6:33 pm
Ah, crap. America’s broken health-care system brings the kiss of unfunny death, again.
Hattie 11.27.06 at 9:04 pm
Jeez. This is so bad. Mr. Healy, you are right to be incensed.
Ajax 11.27.06 at 9:34 pm
” Don’t worry: you can rest assured you’ll be in the most capable, professional hands—just look at the quality of our graphic design! ”
The reasoning here may sound absurd, but in fact many important decisions we take are based on assessing the content of the advice received according to its form of presentation. Our socity would collapse without such epideictic arguments. Example: Do you follow the advice of the doctor who carefully outlines your options, and their pros and cons, along with probabilities of success, or the doctor who holds you hand and says, “Trust me, I’m a doctor”? If the fact that the first doctor appears well-organized sways you, you are inferring conclusions about the content of an argument based upon its form. Venture capitalists do similar when assesing business plans to invest in.
Doctor Slack 11.27.06 at 9:38 pm
Trying to sign people up to see how certain meds mix with their drinking habits — surely there’s some kind of law against that, yes? The brazenness of this is just amazing.
vivian 11.27.06 at 10:41 pm
re #5: no, looks like they’re looking at whether controlling the symptoms of bipolar disorder makes/allows people to drink less. Either because alcohol is one way of self-medicating and there are better ways, or because moderating their moods lets people act on their better judgment more effectively. Medical, not mixological.
Bill Gardner 11.27.06 at 10:50 pm
“Do you have not one, but two separate problems that are associated with making bad decisions? If so, why don’t you choose to have a 50% chance of forgoing treatment for both for three months, in exchange for $600?”
Yes, it is a challenge to do clinical trials of medications for people whose decision making may be impaired. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, Kieran.
Jake 11.28.06 at 12:54 am
How else are you supposed to find out what the specific effects of bipolar meds on alcoholics are?
It’s like the people who say it’s unethical to give medicines to children that haven’t been specifically tested on children but rather only on healthy adults, while also saying that it’s unethical to test experimental drugs on children, because they can’t give informed consent.
It’s a tough situation, but at some point if you want to find out if something will work, you’ll have to test it, and in the relevant subpopulation.
abb1 11.28.06 at 3:22 am
Is lobotomy involved? I listened to a radio show about Dr. Freeman a few days ago and it was absolutely fascinating. He had a van called ‘lobotomobile’.
Eamonn Fitzgerald 11.28.06 at 4:42 am
There was a clinical trial of sorts in London recently. Involved one Alexander Litvinenko. The late Alexander Litvinenko, that is. Surprised CT is not all over the story. Evil president, abuse of power, weapons of mass destruction and all that. Ooops! Wrong president. Sorry!
bi 11.28.06 at 5:19 am
Eamonn Fitzgerald: Hey, you’re right. And Crooked Timber’s not talking about Michael Moore’s fatness either. Argh!
Back to the topic, I wonder if $600 will be enough to cover the treatment when it does become available. Erm… I guess not.
abb1 11.28.06 at 6:54 am
The late Alexander Litvinenko, that is. […] Evil president, abuse of power, weapons of mass destruction and all that.
If you know something, you should contact John Reid immediately.
Matt Weiner 11.28.06 at 8:37 am
Eamonn has a point. After all, it’s not the case that at the moment there is one post on the CT front page that’s very harshly critical of the Russian government and zero posts that mention G.W. Bush. Is it?
bi 11.28.06 at 8:56 am
Matt Weiner: That sounds like a very serious case of a delusional persecution complex. Are there any clinical trials around for this? How much do they pay for entering those?
Walt 11.28.06 at 10:14 am
Eamonn: You really are an idiot. There is a post about how evil Putin is on Crooked Timber’s front page *right now*. God, can’t you even bother to be minimally informed before you troll?
bi 11.28.06 at 11:16 am
Time to stop feeding Eamonn’s hobbyhorse…
M. Townes 11.28.06 at 11:31 am
I’ve participated in clinical trials for a different condition, so let me point out that: a) the placebo rate for those trials was never 1 in 2, sometimes more like 1 in 7; b) I often got to keep taking most of my meds during the trial; c) I got excellent, cuttting-edge care that I couldn’t otherwise afford during the trials; d) the doctor running the trials continued to treat me after the trial; e) they know a lot more about my illness because people like me were willing to show up; f) I never got paid. I suppose that lamps me for a dunce, but so be it.
eudoxis 11.28.06 at 11:48 am
Kieran’s right. There is something irrational about clinical trials for the mentally ill. Even without the promise of money the focused attention of the ad is coercive! I say, stop all pharmaceutical research for those with psychiatric disorders. Simply commit them to pleasant facilities where they can live a meaningful and drug-fee life doing crafts.
Ben A 11.28.06 at 12:10 pm
It passed an ethics committe at MGH. Likely, it’s a fine study. Also there is no specifcation in that advertisement that current therapy for bipolar management is an exclusion criterion, or would be withdrawn.
Comments on this entry are closed.