Recently the second person in the world has been cured of HIV. The first case was a man who went to Germany to get a bone marrow
transplant for his leukemia, and happened to get the transplant from someone
who was immune to HIV. This effectively cured him. This case was a girl who was
born with her mother being HIV positive. Doctors stared this baby on a drug
cocktail known as HAART when the baby was only 30 hours old. They attribute the
success of the treatment to how early it was started. However there are many negative side effects
of HAART treatment such as bone problems, liver issues, increase in fat,
increase in blood glucose levels, and lipodystrophy to name a few. My question
is, is treatment like this acceptable to preform on such a young child?
In my
opinion the answer is absolutely yes. Even though this was giving to the infant
incredibly early, before the HIV tests even came back on the baby, it was the swiftness
in the treatment that cured the baby. Even with the negative side effects of
the treatment, the benefits on the baby’s life are huge. It would be medically
unethical to not treat the baby in my opinion. If there is a chance to cure the
infant of HIV forever, even with negative side effects, I think that chance
must be taken.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21651225
http://www.livestrong.com/article/249257-the-side-effects-of-haart/
1 comment:
I have a question about the case of the girl who was given the HAART treatment early in her life to make her immune to HIV. Was this treatment performed after the informed consent of her parents? My best guess is that it was indeed performed after taking informed consent of her parents. And in that case, I agree with Bradley that there was nothing in giving her the treatment, regardless of the fact that the treatment was performed before receiving the results of the HIV tests and regardless of the fact that the treatment did indeed make the girl immune to HIV.
My argument is that all the people in this world have the freedom to choose. We make decisions on our own, and we face the consequences of these decisions. Now, what about those people who do not have the mental capacity to choose for themselves? I think it is just foolish to simply 'not-decide' for these people in the name of 'protecting their rights.' In the case of this girl, there were two options: either let the girl suffer from a potential HIV positive condition, or perform the HAART treatment which has significant side-effects. The girl couldn't have decided, and so the doctors, who are experts in the field of medicine and hence the best endowed people intellectually to make this decision for her, choose the second option for her. Informed consent of her parents made sure that the decision made by the doctors was a decision in the interests of their daughter and not a decision in the interests of the doctors themselves.
Luckily for her, the treatment indeed made her immune to HIV. But even in the hypothetical scenario in which it didn't, the treatment would still remain completely ethical in my eyes. This is because at the time of the treatment, a choice was made in the best interests of the girl. Yes, it didn't turn out to be the correct one, but we humans are prone to mistakes because we cannot always predict the future accurately. What matters is making smart, rational decisions.
Post a Comment