While this article is evidently gratifying and hopeful, it poses a variety of questions regarding science communication and clinical trials.
At the start of the article, the author takes great care to paint a bleak and listless picture of the survival rate for a little girl with this type of condition. Pulling on your heart strings, they note her young age and the early onset of her illness. Then, however, despite all odds (and even, according to the author, his own expectations) the combination of drugs in small-dose treatments has a lasting effect that has ultimately “cured” Melanie of her brain tumor.
While such a story is not only remarkable, but miraculous, its small scale can provide both false hope and miscommunication to families in similar situations. While the author does note that this event was rare, it might prompt others to suggest such treatments to their doctors, even though their child might not benefit similarly. It may also provide an unbalanced view of the drug’s potential to “cure.”
Stories such as Melanie’s are fantastic accounts of the wonders of modern medicine… however we, as readers, and as individuals seeking to care for ourselves and our family members, must keep such stories in perspective.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This article really does provide hope and something for people and their loved ones to hold on to. I found that near the end of the article, however, there were many (subtle) references to the fact that this research was not to test the effectiveness of this method of therapy, but merely to test whether the drugs were safe in the long term.
I do not doubt though, that people who need some hope, will read this article and focus on different aspects of it, thus creating 'false' hope. This may be the reason why some would ask their doctors about this treatment. I think that alerting the particular doctor to this new research, if he is not already aware of it, could be beneficial to everyone involved.
This shows though, that the general public needs to have some form of scientific literacy to understand what this article really means. This article is composed more like a human interest story, thus the fact that it appeals to our emotions is expected. When people read things like this then they may misinterpret it, leading to more confusion in an already confusing time for these people.
I would not go so far as to say that the writer is irresponsible, but I do think that he could have made a better effort to make it clearer that this is merely a trial of drug safety, rather than a trial of treatment effectiveness.
This article, along with telling a touching story, really shows the thorough process of clinical medicine. Indeed, it does relay to the reader a story about the survival of a little girl who was thought to have terminable brain cancer. However, through this story, it also gives the reader a sense for how doctors go about designing drug treatments/regimines for patients.
First it takes a doctor to have an idea, however impossible it may seem, as the author of this article suggests that the doctor's idea in this case was not expected to be successful in the beginning. And then, after an intial small-scale trial to test either feasibility, potential, or simply safety, as it was in this case, if the results of the trial appear to be positive, then a larger experiment will begin, one with more subjects, a more extensive analysis, and a closer follow-up of the patients over a longer period of time.
In doing so, this article doesn't give a false sense of hope to readers through miscommunication. Instead, it allows reader to get emotionally involved in the story of the little girl and then understand how the process of science may help others like her in the future.
I agree and disagree with previous posts in regards to this article. An important concept from class that it touches on (although, in my opinion, in an indirect way) is, as Ordessia said, the importance of scientific literacy. It is extremely important for the general public to understand that Melanie McDaniel's situation was very unique - in order to even qualify for the experimental treatment(s), the patient had to have a very specific, aggressive type of cancer. I can definitely see how this article could provide false hope or unrealistic expectations to someone who has a low level of scientific literacy. At the same time, however, I am not so sure that such an individual would be reading the science/health section of the New York Times in the first place!
I agree with previous posters that this almost miraculous scenario is certainly the "exception" and not the "rule" when it comes to such a devastating illness like cancer. However, I think part of effective public health communication is providing such hope, however slim the chances may be, to inspire people to want to get better. Study after study shows that people who have a strong will to live, to fight, to beat the disease or health affliction that they have stand a significantly-greater chance of actually doing so. While stories like little Melanie's are few and far between, the purpose they serve is crucial to improving public health and to helping people through some of the darkest times they may ever go through.
Post a Comment