From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Sat Feb 08 2003 - 04:50:08 MST
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:54:08AM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> Well, don't you think that the individual patient, his or her family,
> and their familial medical practitioners should have a say in the
> matter? In some individual condition, it might be the best option
> to adopt a treatment that has very little chance of success. So
> who should decide?
>
> Why, ---wait--- don't tell me! I know! It must be left to
> Professional Bodies hundreds or thousands of miles away who
> are not familiar with the particular distress of a particular
> condition, but whose wisdom so exceeds that of the individuals
> directly involved, that the matter simply cannot be left in
> the ignorant and incompetent hands of the locals! Right?
>
> Thank goodness the Swedes or some other researchers out of
> reach are not required to follow the central directives of
> our wonderful American FDA.
Yes. Here we follow the central directives of Socialstyrelsen (Ministry
of Social Health) and Läkemedelsverket (our FDA). Beside the extra
regulations imposed by other authorities. And since healthcare is
socialized (at least for major stuff like this) there is only one
provider. We are extremely free, I have been told by the government ;-)
I think you misunderstood Rafals point: stem cell treatments are risky
and of unknown efficacy right now. That doesn't mean they aren't
worthwhile to try for some people, but one shouldn't get one's hopes up
too much right now. There are other treatments that have shown great
promise such as brain pacemakers or even pallidotomy. Right now the
demand for treatments outstrips the supply, simply because it is highly
experimental, stem cells are hard to come by and the technique is
tricky. Once it is proven and the wrinkles come out it will no doubt
become far more common. Until then it is very much that patients are
selected by researchers.
I listened to one of the researchers lecture in a neuroscience course I
attended, and it sounded promising but also rather primitive at present
(the sheer *size* of that screw they used to lodge the stem cells in the
basal ganglia! Ouch!).
> Rafal writes
> > Ian Reilly wrote:
> > > REGARDING PARKINSONS:
> > > Some of you may be interested to know that the Swedes treated a
> > > drug induced severe Parkinson's type disorder with embryonic stem
> > > cells. The treatment was apparently successful, albeit extremely
> > > expensive. It involved injecting the dopamine producing stem cells
> > > into the region of the brain that is damaged by PD. The experimental
> > > treatment was done on some people from California. There was also a
> > > bit on the program about the severity of the side effects of Levadopa
> > > - apparently it is very nasty stuff - debilitating side effects are
> > > inevitable if the patient continues to take it.
> >
> > ### You might want to peruse some articles in "Neurology" over the past two
> > years, showing that stem cell implants are as yet a highly immature
> > technology, suitable strictly for research purposes due to major surgical
> > and other risks, as well as lack of clear evidence of sustained efficacy.
>
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 04:48:55 MST