Traveling Across Borders—The Pitfalls of Clinical Trial Regulation and Stem Cell Exceptionalism
Traveling Across Borders—The Pitfalls of Clinical Trial Regulation and Stem Cell Exceptionalism
复制标题
跨境旅行——临床试验监管和干细胞例外论的陷阱
DOI:
10.1080/15265161003754064
复制
发表时间:
2010
期刊:
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Dana Wilson‐Kovacs
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
C. Hauskeller;Dana Wilson‐Kovacs
An absence of evidence regarding risk, even for nonlife-threatening illnesses such as blindness, makes it impossible for a physician to intervene on behalf of the child patient. This is the main source of concern in Zarzeczny and Caulfield’s second category of cases; given the unknown risks in these cases, the gathering of relevant information regarding the effects of unproven stem cell treatments is of the utmost importance. Physicians ought to take action to reduce the range of cases that fall under the second category, and, if possible, render it an empty set. While the project we recommend would only be a small step toward that larger goal, active cataloging of data which we have proposed will be an important contribution towards reducing the “gray area” cases. Given the relatively small population of Canada, and thus the limited pool of patients who might participate in stem cell travel, an international effort would be welcomed—coordinated perhaps by a partnership between the CMA, the American Medical Association (AMA), and the British Medical Association (BMA), or possibly even the World Medical Association (WMA). It is important that efforts get underway soon to fill the informational void that surrounds unproven stem cell treatments and to give physicians the tools they need to fulfill the role of health care provider. There is simply too much at stake in the lives of vulnerable patients.■