| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
|
|
|
|||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
1 From the Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
Although the advancement of medical science can occur only with the systematic evaluation of new interventions, novel therapies continue to be introduced and accepted prior to thorough study. The recent development of lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema provides an illustration of the unwillingness or the inability of the medical community, unconstrained by legal or reimbursement limitations, to assure the safety and efficacy of a new procedure prior to widespread utilization. Medical practitioners must learn to recognize the experimental nature of new procedures independent of the courts and third-party payers. The nature of the informed consent that must be obtained for an experimental therapy is different from that which is required for standard medical practice and this difference can provide a test of whether a new treatment is experimental. A comparison between the introduction of lung volume reduction surgery and the rigorous scrutiny required of any pharmacologic interventions for emphysema underscores the double standard that exists for evaluating new surgical (and some medical) innovations. Such a double standard cannot be defended on ethical or scientific grounds. Specific changes in the way experimental therapies are introduced and disseminated are suggested. Until all new medical and surgical interventions are required to undergo a thorough evaluation pnor to becoming standard of care, the promise of evidence-based medicine can never be fulfilled.
Key Words: ethics • medical • experimental therapy • informed consent • lung volume reduction surgery • technology assessment
Submitted on February 26, 1996
Accepted on May 2, 2007
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A R Glanville Ethical and equity issues in lung transplantation and lung volume reduction surgery Chronic Respiratory Disease, January 1, 2006; 3(1): 53 - 58. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. D. Ramsey and S. D. Sullivan Evidence, Economics, And Emphysema: Medicare's Long Journey With Lung Volume Reduction Surgery Health Aff., January 1, 2005; 24(1): 55 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Brenner, N. M. Hanna, R. Mina-Araghi, A. F. Gelb, R. J. McKenna Jr, and H. Colt Innovative Approaches to Lung Volume Reduction for Emphysema Chest, July 1, 2004; 126(1): 238 - 248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Shigemura, A. Akashi, T. Nakagiri, M. Ohta, and H. Matsuda Predicting the Response to Lung Volume Reduction Surgery Using Scintigraphy Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, March 1, 2004; 12(1): 33 - 37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R S Goldstein, T R J Todd, G Guyatt, S Keshavjee, T E Dolmage, S van Rooy, B Krip, F Maltais, P LeBlanc, S Pakhale, et al. Influence of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) on health related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Thorax, May 1, 2003; 58(5): 405 - 410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. W. Jones Ethics of rapid surgical technological advancement Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2000; 69(3): 676 - 677. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Young, A. Fry-Smith, and C. Hyde Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with underlying severe emphysema Thorax, September 1, 1999; 54(9): 779 - 789. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
