| Baby-harming medical research frauds | |||||
about retinopathy of prematurity by H. Peter Aleff, 2008 | ||||||
Intensive care nursery abuses Research frauds and deceits as well as honest errors occur in many branches of science. Some of them get exposed and often also corrected when later replications of the reported experiments fail to produce the described results, or when critics discover that the data presented do not support the conclusions drawn from them. This so-called mechanism of self-correction in science works reasonably well in fields where experiments can be repeated and methods refined, such as physics or chemistry, or where the logic and consistency of theories and proofs is subject to unrelenting scrutiny, such as astronomy and mathematics. In medical research, however, many factors work against such self-correction, and that mechanism is therefore much more subject to failure, despite some recent attempts to make medicine at long last "evidence-based". Clinical trials are expensive and many are not likely to be replicated when their results look convincing. Although their authors usually point out that the reported results are preliminary and more research is needed, those results can quickly enter the doctrine without the ritual qualifiers the trial authors may have wrapped around their conclusions, and without repeated validations. Medical students and doctors rely on the honesty and accuracy of the research that informs their clinical decisions, and they have a vested interest in maintaining this faith because it forms the basis of their guild's reputation and scientific claims. After spending much time and money to acquire their medical degree, many will be loath to consider that parts of their valued doctrine and livelihood could be built on frauds or errors. In addition, the mandates of "medical ethics" discourage the voicing of such doubts. Some medical anthropologists have noted that all the systems of medical ethics they studied from different periods and places are simply
This mechanism of guild protection by message discipline makes it difficult for any member to openly admit that they and their colleagues may have been duped or misled by a false and fraud-based doctrine that made them cause unnecessary harm to patients. Such glasnost would contradict the image of medicine as responsible and scientific which they and their guild strive to project. Moreover, the American legal system provides major incentives against any admission of medical wrongdoing. Medical malpractice lawyers owe it to their harmed clients to exploit any such opening, so they try to extract compensation from the doctors involved or their insurers. Those lawyers' efforts trigger in their targets defensive reflexes that make many doctors circle their wagons to keep those potential openings closed. For an account of where this vicious circle has led the medical approach to treating preemies, continue
| ||||||
Contact us at retinopathyofprematurity.org | ||||||
