Catch 22
Sometimes the findings indicate that unexpected treatments might help. In a newly published federal study of 224 gene sequences of colon cancers, for example, researchers found genetic changes in 5 percent that were the same as changes in breast cancer patients whose prognosis is drastically improved with a drug, Herceptin. About 15 percent had a particular gene mutation that is common in melanoma. Once again, there is a drug, approved for melanoma, that might help. But under the rules of the study, none of the research subjects could ever know.
You agree to allow researchers to study your tissue sample. They agree to never contact you again. So they don’t.
What?
It’s increasingly evident that the government is extremely incompetent. Incapable of doing even the smallest task effectively to “Help” people.
That’s a little harsh Jeremy, especially given that this problem only occurred because of a federally funded medical/scientific study.
Also, this is part of a very complex moral/ethical question – ““My gut feeling is that there is a moral obligation to return results,” Dr. Koenig said. “But that comes at an enormous cost. If you were in a study 20 years ago, where does my obligation end?””
I think the best solution would be for subjects to read the contracts, understand them, and adjust the contract to their liking: a mutual agreement between two parties.
I beleive the govt also has the obligation to “promote the general Welfare”, and this (having information that could easily save a life) without question, falls under that phrase. Regardless of the litigation precautions. IMO
Surely a middle ground can be reached. I doubt most people would be unhappy about being contacted again if it was with news that their cancer could be treated better.
^ Mr. Provolone took the words right out of my mouth!
Dunno Chuck, I might have to go with August. There needs to be clearly defined statute of limitations. It’s my responsibility to understand and abide by any contract I sign. Government shouldn’t have any inherent right to adjudicate where moral issues are concerned. A morally rigid government would be just as bad as an immoral one.