Would Jenner’s smallpox experiment pass a research ethics committee?
by Andrew George | 20 Feb 2016 |
You have to pity Edward Jenner. He develops a vaccination for smallpox, saves countless lives in the process and eradicates one of the greatest scourges of humanity, yet is often accused of conducting unethical experiments.
The case seems indisputable. On May 14, 1796 Jenner vaccinated James Phipps, the eight-year-old son of his gardener, with material obtained from a milkmaid who had cowpox. A few weeks later he deliberately infected Phipps with smallpox to see if he would develop the disease. What could be more unethical than exposing a young boy to one of the most deadly diseases in the world simply to see if an unknown procedure would work?
But the story is more complex than this simple narrative suggests. In the 18th century, doctors carried out a procedure known as variolation to protect people from smallpox. This involved exposing people to a small dose of smallpox in order to give them a mild form of the disease, thereby protecting them from the full effects of the disease. It was not a risk-free procedure, and people often died as a result. However, given the terrible mortality of smallpox this was seen to be worthwhile.
Variolation had a long history in China, the Middle East and Africa. Its history in Britain was started by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, one of the most colourful characters in immunology. She originally eloped with her husband, and then went with him to Constantinople where he was ambassador.
Wortley Montagu wrote extensively about Ottoman life, wore Turkish dress, visited harems and Turkish baths and disguised herself as a man in order to get into the Hagia Sophia mosque. While in Constantinople, she came across the practice of variolation and, in 1718, had her young son Edward variolated on the wrist with a “blunt and rusty needle”.
Returning to England she resumed life in society. She was a friend of the poet, Alexander Pope, who admired her intelligence and wit and was probably in love with her. In 1721 a smallpox epidemic was threatening Britain, and she persuaded Charles Maitland, her doctor in Constantinople, to variolate her daughter.
Wortley Montagu was a friend of Caroline, the Princess of Wales, who was also worried about the safety of her children. It’s thought that this was what prompted the interest of Britain’s royal family in variolation.
Sir Hans Sloane (later founder of the British Museum) organised “The Royal Experiment” in 1721, in which six condemned prisoners from Newgate Prison were variolated. They were then pardoned and released.
You might question several aspects of the ethics of this experiment. To see if this protected them from smallpox, Sloane paid for one of the pardoned female convicts to sleep in the same bed as a ten-year-old boy with smallpox for six weeks. Of course, nowadays this would raise safeguarding as well as ethical issues. As a result of the experiment, Princess Caroline arranged for orphan children in a local parish to be variolated, and, when these children also came to no harm, two of the royal princesses were treated.
This new procedure was very controversial. A proportion of those treated died as a result. It was argued from church pulpits that the practice was both dangerous and sinful as only God had the power to inflict disease. But, over the century, it became a relatively routine approach to protecting people from smallpox.
There was a belief in the countryside that people who looked after cows and had been infected with cowpox could not catch smallpox (milkmaids were said to have attractive non-pockmarked skin). In 1774, Benjamin Jesty deliberately infected his wife and sons with cowpox in an attempt to protect them from smallpox. What Jenner did was to take this a stage further, to vaccinate his patient with cowpox (the Latin word “vaccinus” means “from cows”), and then see if that stopped the symptoms that occurred after a person was variolated with smallpox.
So, in light of this story, was Jenner’s experiment on the Phipps lad unethical?
Well, there are certainly things that we might question. Experimenting on the son of his gardener raises concerns about coercion and consent. We might question aspects of the scientific design given that there was only one subject. But to the central charge – that he deliberately exposed a young child to smallpox solely to see if his vaccination procedure was effective – I would argue that he is not guilty. What he did do was variolate the child, a standard medical treatment at the time, known to be effective against smallpox. Jenner routinely performed variolation on his patients, and had been variolated himself. He took advantage of this procedure to demonstrate that vaccination really did protect from smallpox – an experiment that changed our world.
Andrew George, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Brunel University London. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article
Canada’s legislators are still wrestling with how to frame a new euthanasia law. One interesting contribution to the debate comes from a senator who became a mental health advocate after her husband, a former member of Parliament, committed suicide in 2009. Senator Denise Batters suggests that psychological suffering should be excluded as a grounds for euthanasia.
"I have seen ... the devastating impact, not only for the individual that goes through that pain themselves ... but at the same time ... I've seen the devastating consequences that it can have on the immediate family members," she said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"Canadians may support assisted suicide, but they want extremely strong safeguards and I think that when I talk to people about the possibility of psychological suffering being included as ... sole grounds for having access to physician-assisted suicide, they are horrified and stunned that could be a possibility," she said. “There aren't many, many thousands of people in this country who have lived through a period of severe anxiety and depression and come out the other side".
The senator is right. What people who are suffering psychologically need is more personal and better medical support, not a lethal injection.
Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge
| This week in BioEdge | |
by Michael Cook | Feb 20, 2016
Since legalisation 991 people have died.by Michael Cook | Feb 20, 2016
Rising infertility is one cause of a increasing demandby Michael Cook | Feb 20, 2016
If banning them won't work, perhaps making them compulsory willby Xavier Symons | Feb 20, 2016
A leading evolutionary biologist has labelled IVF an “evolutionary experiment” that may have serious effects on children in later life.by Xavier Symons | Feb 20, 2016
Two insightful articles recently published in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy may provide much needed clarity in philosophical debates about personhood.by Xavier Symons | Feb 20, 2016
Australian doctors are refusing to release the baby of an asylum seeker couple from hospital until a “suitable home environment” has been found for her.by Xavier Symons | Feb 20, 2016
Russia has rejected allegations that it bombed a Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in northern Syria last Monday.by Michael Cook | Feb 20, 2016
After 70 years, have a physician's obligations changed?by Andrew George | Feb 20, 2016
A single vulnerable subject exposed to a dread disease without animal trials -- it's not sounding goodBioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
Email: michael@bioedge.org
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario