6 ms·

One issue that I've seen raised before is that there's a bit of a Catch-22 in public perception in Africa. As you point out, withholding the experimental drug h

by Steuard 12y ago

One issue that I've seen raised before is that there's a bit of a Catch-22 in public perception in Africa. As you point out, withholding the experimental drug has nasty overtones of "saving the cure for the white folks". But there's also a real risk that if they gave the first experimental treatment to Dr. Khan, the narrative would be "using the black folks as guinea pigs". Both of these concerns are based on actual history, so they're not easily dismissed in the region. I don't know how you balance that. If the treatment is new enough, you really might not know whether it would help or hurt the patient's odds of survival.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
monsterix 12y ago
Hm. I agree that it'd be hard for anyone to decide on a thing that affects public perception in Africa. And in that pressure, I believe, probably the worst decision was taken in the case of Dr. Khan. If they had tried the third vial (extra bottle) of drug on Dr. Khan, and so close he was to the medicines!, and had he survived (given that others did) the public perception would have certainly changed. Don't you think? SIDENOTE to downvoters: Very interesting behavior of what I believe is a small set of users on HN. I know Steuard, above, had not down-voted my parent comment on the top until about an hour ago. And then came a sudden barrage of negative votes from a few users. It'd be really interesting to find out the correlation between the users who down-voted and the color of their skin. I am pretty sure about the outcome. Also I have a strong feeling (could be unfounded though) that the committee that withdrew the drug from Dr. Khan in Africa had racial bias too. And that they took the most selfish option available at the time - without caring much about a precious human life or public perception both. Most of the pointers indicate that the names of those individuals should come out in public, and their reasoning be brought out too. We had a similar situation earlier where the potentially nasty hid behind a committee / organizational name - remember? - when Aaron Swartz happened and the people in the bureaucracy had to be called out.
- throwaway5752 12y ago
  It is absurd and conspiratorial to think that someone would volunteer or work with MSF at great personal cost and risk and then do something so terrible because of racism. Had you tried to research it, you might have found some of your answer articles like http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/dying-sierra-leone-dr-sheik-umar-khan-never-told-ebola-drug-was-available-1.2738163 http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/dying-sierra-leone-dr-sheik-um... that talk about some of the details behind the decision. You make a really vile accusation with very poor reasoning against people doing very good, noble work (and calling for them to be named publicly). I didn't downvote you, but I don't have any sympathy.
  - monsterix 12y ago
    It is rather more absurd to withhold the medicine from a dying patient simply to manage "public perception" sir. You can go ahead and give a negative vote too, it wouldn't mean a thing. Yes, people are doing very good, noble work -- Dr Khan was one of them too -- I seek to know the thoughts and names of those who chose to withhold the medicine from him, and give it to others the very next day. The world should know. And thanks for the article, I did read it before and therefore, I ask for reasons that led to their unfortunate decision.
    - throwaway5752 12y ago
      "It is rather more absurd to withhold the medicine from a dying patient simply to manage "public perception" sir." That would be awful it it were true. Why do you think that is the case? Neither the submitted article, my Lancet link, nor my CBC link contain those words. However, the CBC article notes: "The drug had never been tested on humans. What if it caused an allergic reaction that killed Dr. Khan?" "His blood showed antibodies to the virus, evidence that his own immune system was already in full battle. What if the drug got in the way of that immune response?" "...the final decision was left with the doctors at the field hospital in Sierra Leone, although it was not a unanimous decision." Friend of Dr Khan talking about the decision, "I do want it to be clear that these were difficult, delicate decisions that people in a stressful situation had to make." "The treatment, it was felt, if it was to be used at all, would be better attempted at the more sophisticated hospital in Europe where Dr. Khan was about to be moved." "A Spanish priest who also received the experimental treatment later died." All of these undercut your accusations completely.

by Steuard 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

monsterix 12y ago

Hm. I agree that it'd be hard for anyone to decide on a thing that affects public perception in Africa. And in that pressure, I believe, probably the worst decision was taken in the case of Dr. Khan. If they had tried the third vial (extra bottle) of drug on Dr. Khan, and so close he was to the medicines!, and had he survived (given that others did) the public perception would have certainly changed. Don't you think? SIDENOTE to downvoters: Very interesting behavior of what I believe is a small set of users on HN. I know Steuard, above, had not down-voted my parent comment on the top until about an hour ago. And then came a sudden barrage of negative votes from a few users. It'd be really interesting to find out the correlation between the users who down-voted and the color of their skin. I am pretty sure about the outcome. Also I have a strong feeling (could be unfounded though) that the committee that withdrew the drug from Dr. Khan in Africa had racial bias too. And that they took the most selfish option available at the time - without caring much about a precious human life or public perception both. Most of the pointers indicate that the names of those individuals should come out in public, and their reasoning be brought out too. We had a similar situation earlier where the potentially nasty hid behind a committee / organizational name - remember? - when Aaron Swartz happened and the people in the bureaucracy had to be called out.

throwaway5752 12y ago
It is absurd and conspiratorial to think that someone would volunteer or work with MSF at great personal cost and risk and then do something so terrible because of racism. Had you tried to research it, you might have found some of your answer articles like http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/dying-sierra-leone-dr-sheik-umar-khan-never-told-ebola-drug-was-available-1.2738163 http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/dying-sierra-leone-dr-sheik-um... that talk about some of the details behind the decision. You make a really vile accusation with very poor reasoning against people doing very good, noble work (and calling for them to be named publicly). I didn't downvote you, but I don't have any sympathy.
- monsterix 12y ago
  It is rather more absurd to withhold the medicine from a dying patient simply to manage "public perception" sir. You can go ahead and give a negative vote too, it wouldn't mean a thing. Yes, people are doing very good, noble work -- Dr Khan was one of them too -- I seek to know the thoughts and names of those who chose to withhold the medicine from him, and give it to others the very next day. The world should know. And thanks for the article, I did read it before and therefore, I ask for reasons that led to their unfortunate decision.
  - throwaway5752 12y ago
    "It is rather more absurd to withhold the medicine from a dying patient simply to manage "public perception" sir." That would be awful it it were true. Why do you think that is the case? Neither the submitted article, my Lancet link, nor my CBC link contain those words. However, the CBC article notes: "The drug had never been tested on humans. What if it caused an allergic reaction that killed Dr. Khan?" "His blood showed antibodies to the virus, evidence that his own immune system was already in full battle. What if the drug got in the way of that immune response?" "...the final decision was left with the doctors at the field hospital in Sierra Leone, although it was not a unanimous decision." Friend of Dr Khan talking about the decision, "I do want it to be clear that these were difficult, delicate decisions that people in a stressful situation had to make." "The treatment, it was felt, if it was to be used at all, would be better attempted at the more sophisticated hospital in Europe where Dr. Khan was about to be moved." "A Spanish priest who also received the experimental treatment later died." All of these undercut your accusations completely.