Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 33 34 35 ··· 39 40

Original poster

to be a little in love with Ben Goldacre?

999 replies

entropyglitter · 09/01/2012 12:15

Just read 'bad science' (finally) and I think I am in love.....

my favourite bit was Gillian McKeith thinking that oxygen (generated by chlorophyll) in your gut is not only plausible, but at all a good idea....

presumably this is at the same time as main lining anti-oxidants (which had been shown to increase your risk of disease rather than decrease it).

OP posts:

Beachcomber · 15/01/2012 21:27

It is akin to accusing someone of gross misconduct not because they used some blood you donated in a village hall for research purposes (which you gave permission for) but because they didn't apply to the Ethics Committee for permission for you to give blood in the village hall.

And then throwing the book at them because they gave you a cup of tea and a biscuit afterwards.

It is utterly risible.

No rules were broken so where in the name of arse is the professional misconduct and the causing of disrepute on the medical profession? I mean are the GMC just allowed to make this stuff up as they go along? It appears they are.

And does any of this contradict the findings of the Lancet paper? No it doesn't because we aren't talking about the science we are taking about children's fecking birthday parties for crying out loud. I wonder if they asked him what colour the jelly was?

Beachcomber · 15/01/2012 21:33

No, you absolutely need clearance from an ethics committee if you're taking blood for research purposes

Yes of course you do. I already said that - having written permission for the sample to be used for research purposes, from the donator, is part of that ethical standard.

What you do not need is ethical clearance for taking the blood outwith a medical setting (as long as the people who take the blood are medical professionals).

No rules were broken.

My visiting nurse better watch his back if the GMC decide that you need ethical clearance to take a blood sample outwith a medical setting!

ElaineBenes · 15/01/2012 21:35

Beach, you're not getting it. It IS gross professional misconduct to undertake human subjects research without having received ethical committee clearance for what you are doing. This is even more so if you are conducting reserch on vulnerable populations like children. Yes, you need informed consent but that is not enough.

You can make excuses for it, you don't have to like it but there is no getting away from the fact that conducting research on human subjects - especially children - without having received clearance from an ethical review board is gross professional misconduct.

No, it doesn't negate the science but researchers are usually very suspicious about any research which has violated ethics because it suggests that the trust which is implicit in research has also been violated. Which happens to also be what was found.

SweetLilyTea · 15/01/2012 21:38

Did he get written permission from the parents before the party?

Medical ethics and rules, particularly when it comes to children, are rightly very tight. I would actually be beyond pissed off if a doctor took blood from my child at a party and I only found out afterwards. If he asked permission beforehand, and then handed my child a fiver, my child would be thrilled, and I would be fine about, BUT if he contravenes medical ethics it doesn't matter if I'm fine or not. The rules have been broken.

Beach your post reads like he was only struck off because of the blood taking, which of course is not the case.

ElaineBenes · 15/01/2012 21:38

By the way, Beachcomber, the setting is not the issue. You need the clearance of the ethics committee whether in a medical setting or out of it.

Beachcomber · 15/01/2012 21:41

Is it? Go on, do an 'AIBU to be concerned that a doctor started taking blood samples from the kiddies at a birthday party my DC attended today?'

But none of the parents were concerned because they gave their written permission.

I think this controversy is complicated enough without contemplating fictitious AIBU threads about things that haven't actually happened. Forgive me if I pass on that one as being an utterly pointless waste of time.

I suppose it has the potential for an excellent AIBU by stealth though.

Why didn't you tell us 900 posts ago that you gave your blardy written permission you buckethead?

Beachcomber · 15/01/2012 21:44

By the way, Beachcomber, the setting is not the issue. You need the clearance of the ethics committee whether in a medical setting or out of it.

Of course you do.

So why on earth are the GMC making a song and dance about the setting.

You just said it yourself, the setting is not an issue.

ElaineBenes · 15/01/2012 21:46

As I said before, Beachcomber, informed consnet is only one part of the picture (it doesn't have to be written btw, although written is preferred).

It is the lack of clearance of a medical ethics committee. These committees are there for a reason and you can't just ignore your obligations to seek approval before conducting research on human subjects, especially children (or changing your protocol) because you happen to have a convenient sample at your child's birthday party. It's unacceptable and it is gross professional misconduct. Ask ANY researcher. I know people who got into trouble for a whole lot less.

ElaineBenes · 15/01/2012 21:48

I'm not a biomedical researcher, Beachcomber, but I'd imagine that conducting medical procedures outside of a medical setting may require further documentation as to why it is necessary. In the same way as conducting research on children requires further documentation.

The fact is he didn't have ethical committtee clearnace for what he did. At least we can agree on that point.

noblegiraffe · 15/01/2012 21:49

"But none of the parents were concerned because they gave their written permission. "

None of the parents who gave written permission were concerned. Does that cover all the parents then?

I'd be very surprised if every parent there gave permission for blood to be taken from their child. And if they all did, then that raises further ethical questions as to whether pressure was put upon them to comply.

noblegiraffe · 15/01/2012 21:52

Of course the setting is an issue. Medical research on humans is not something to be taken lightly and it is not something to recruit for, or take samples for at a children's birthday party. It is entirely inappropriate.

Beachcomber · 15/01/2012 21:58

Elaine I don't mean this to sound rude but are you reading NG's posts?

Dr Wakefield caused blood to be taken from a group of children for research purposes at a birthday party, which the Panel found to be an inappropriate social setting. He behaved unethically in failing to seek Ethics Committee approval

This part refers to the setting.

That is what I mean about this being Orwellian.

He had written permission from the parents to use the blood for research purposes. He had ethical approval for the research (I will go out on a limb and presume that the written permission was filed somewhere within the administration required by the ethics committee - that is why the written permission from the parents is an important detail).

Of course it would be a serious matter if he had used the blood for research purposes and did not follow ethical standards of conduct.

But you just said yourself, the setting itself is not an issue.

But hey if you are defending the right for the GMC to demand that HCP's apply for ethical clearance to take blood in a nonmedical setting don't let me stand in your way.

It will make things a bit tricky for visiting nurses, nurses at blood banks, school nursing staff, etc and will waste an inordinate amount of the Ethics Committee's time, but if people think it is important I guess that's just utter madness too bad.

ElaineBenes · 15/01/2012 22:06

If he'd have had appropriate ethical committee clearance for taking children's blood at a brithday party he'd have been fine.

He didn't. But the fact is that he wouldn't have got it because a birthday party is a completely inappropriate setting to conduct medical research on children.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

ElaineBenes · 15/01/2012 22:07

Beachcomber, are you aware that there is a huge ethical difference between taking blood for clinical purposes and taking blood for research purposes?

Beachcomber · 15/01/2012 22:11

Elaine of course I am .

noblegiraffe · 15/01/2012 22:11

"He had written permission from the parents to use the blood for research purposes. "

How do you know?

This website for example suggests that he didn't. It could, of course, be dodgy, so I'd be interested to see your evidence.

SweetLilyTea · 15/01/2012 22:14

It's funny, but I think if it emerged that Wakefield was eating babies for lunch some people here would find a way to vindicate him.

Disclaimer - I know that Wakefield does not eat babies for lunch.

ReneeVivien · 15/01/2012 22:18

When I worked in the NHS it was complicated and time-consuming to do any research of any kind on patients. Even if I just wanted to pop along the corridor to do a quick survey about how patients felt about discharge arrangements (for example) I would have to get ethics committee approval. And that could mean a very long wait.

I absolutely would have known - like everyone else working in the NHS, including Dr Wakefield - that it's not ok to just take blood in an ad hoc way like this. PLUS this is children. PLUS money changed hands (before/after - it's still not on). PLUS it was at a party, with noise and bustle and lack of privacy and peer pressure all reducing the ability to obtain truly informed consent. You may think it's ridiculous, but it's the rules and Dr Wakefield would have known that.

ElaineBenes · 15/01/2012 22:19

Beachcomber: So if you know there is a difference between taking blood for research and for clinical purposes then you are deliberately being obtuse I guess. Clearly an HCP who is taking blood in a non medical setting for clinical reasons would not ethical clearance. You do understand that?

Beachcomber · 15/01/2012 22:36

I wonder if the GMC is looking into Mr Deer being handed confidential medical records.

And writing about them in the BMJ.

I wonder if they are trying to find out which medical professional handed over confidential medical records to a journo?

SweetLilyTea · 15/01/2012 22:38

So Beach changes tack again.....

ElaineBenes · 15/01/2012 22:39

So what you're saying now Beachcomber is that while Wakefield was unethical it's OK because Deer was just as bad (even though there's no evidence of wrongdoing - I don't know the ins and outs but if Deer did anything wrong, I'm sure there's lots of people willing to report him)

SweetLilyTea · 15/01/2012 22:44

Elaine, it's just one big smear campaign against anyone who dares stand against Wakefield.

ElaineBenes · 15/01/2012 22:46

Sad but true, SLT, sad but true.

Beachcomber · 15/01/2012 22:56

No I'm just kind of surprised that all these posters who are outraged at taking bloods outwith a medical setting, don't seem to have anything to say about the massive ethical insult of having one's child's medical records handed over to a journo and be written about in the BMJ (by said journo with a helpful editorial from the editor.) And all that without one's permission.

Can you imagine how furious the parents are about this violation?

Flip

1 2 ··· 33 34 35 ··· 39 40