3 ms·

I hate to naysay an effort that was obviously intended as a righteous humanitarian effort, but is testing these devices in Haiti an ethical action? We have rig

I hate to naysay an effort that was obviously intended as a righteous humanitarian effort, but is testing these devices in Haiti an ethical action? We have rigorous rules about testing medical treatments on our own citizens, but it seems that in the time of Haiti's worst crisis, their citizens become our guinea pigs. Maybe she was helping out lots of people down there, but maybe she was getting in the way of real, proven medicine. If so, these Haitians are further suffering so that we can conduct some more medical research? The article certainly doesn't say these devices brought an iota of healing to the people of Haiti, and that's a warning sign too. Even if this was a good singular decision, it's a slippery slope to send scientists down to disaster sites to test their gizmos.

hristov 17y ago
It seems that in the underlying concepts that show that this device can work are already well known. That is, it is known that vacuum suction helps wounds and there are already existing approved devices that already do that. So the only think she was testing is whether the rather simple mechanics of that particular device will work as expected. So it does not seem to be something especially dangerous.
wisty 17y ago
A friend of my dad's developed a low-cost medical device for use in Africa. It worked, but not as well as expensive devices, and it wasn't taken up. There's a lot of bureaucracy that stands in the way of getting affordable (but less advanced) medical equipment onto the field. On the other hand, if you want to field test an expensive device in a third world country, you can lobby the right people and splash a few bribes around. The Constant Gardener (fictional, yes, but I doubt it's far from the truth) is about this. Cheap devices aren't worth the effort.
almost 17y ago
From the article it sounds like better devices are available, it's just that they cost a lot of money ($100/day rental, it says) and need electricity to run. For this reason it might never be considered ethical to test it in a richer country where those expensive devices are available. For a poorer country where the expensive alternative is not an option things may be different though.
nnutter 17y ago
To be honest, I can barely tell if this is just a troll comment. If you are serious though, perhaps the testing isn't of the "medical" effectiveness which appears to be known but rather its "engineering" effectiveness.
gojomo 17y ago
Yes, it's ethical. This is a cheaper way to apply a known-effective wound treatment -- not a speculative implant or drug that's hard to monitor. The participation means more professional attention to those treated. The alternative is not expensive state-of-the-art suction dressing, but cruder care and less attention. To apply the expensive risk-averse rules of a rich country to a poor country would be more unethical.

hristov 17y ago

It seems that in the underlying concepts that show that this device can work are already well known. That is, it is known that vacuum suction helps wounds and there are already existing approved devices that already do that. So the only think she was testing is whether the rather simple mechanics of that particular device will work as expected. So it does not seem to be something especially dangerous.

wisty 17y ago

A friend of my dad's developed a low-cost medical device for use in Africa. It worked, but not as well as expensive devices, and it wasn't taken up. There's a lot of bureaucracy that stands in the way of getting affordable (but less advanced) medical equipment onto the field. On the other hand, if you want to field test an expensive device in a third world country, you can lobby the right people and splash a few bribes around. The Constant Gardener (fictional, yes, but I doubt it's far from the truth) is about this. Cheap devices aren't worth the effort.

almost 17y ago

From the article it sounds like better devices are available, it's just that they cost a lot of money ($100/day rental, it says) and need electricity to run. For this reason it might never be considered ethical to test it in a richer country where those expensive devices are available. For a poorer country where the expensive alternative is not an option things may be different though.

nnutter 17y ago

To be honest, I can barely tell if this is just a troll comment. If you are serious though, perhaps the testing isn't of the "medical" effectiveness which appears to be known but rather its "engineering" effectiveness.

gojomo 17y ago

Yes, it's ethical. This is a cheaper way to apply a known-effective wound treatment -- not a speculative implant or drug that's hard to monitor. The participation means more professional attention to those treated. The alternative is not expensive state-of-the-art suction dressing, but cruder care and less attention. To apply the expensive risk-averse rules of a rich country to a poor country would be more unethical.