Although Infertility Doctors or clinics are not mentioned in the article below it does cause one to think about all the medications and treatments given in the world of ART (Assisted Reproduction Technology). It also puts into question what choices are made for us by 'professionals' in the ART field (which is REALLY what I am talking about here). I have watched an ongoing debate with one attorney who doesn't believe that there needs to be another 'layer' of services in the Third Party Family Building field, namely infertility consultants, surrogacy and egg donation consultants who run independent agency's (meaning that those agency's are not affiliated with a clinic or attorney's office and leaves the choice of who the Intended Parents use for those services open to their discretion and are usually less expensive then attorneys who also run their own matching services). We are not talking about people who want to take over the job of RE's, nurses or attorneys. We are talking about professionals who have been there, done that and devote time and energy in further educating their clients (IPs, surrogates and egg donors mainly) and themselves in what to expect as people are building their family's through the less familiar route of Assisted Reproductive Technology.
I also believe that checks and balances are a necessity in this complex business of infertility and which is why we have patient advocates, professional societies, and individuals who will stand up and point out when there are gaps in the system. If it were a perfect seamless flow of information then why would simple educational web sites like Infertility Answers, Inc http://www.infertilityanswers.net/ be receiving 20,000 visitors a month? Why would blogs such as the The Fertility Advocate (http://www.thefertilityadvocate.com/wpblog/)and Stirrup Queens and Sperm Palace Jesters: A Whole Lot of Blogging (http://stirrup-queens.blogspot.com/2008/10/welcome-to-site.html)and last but certainly not least Surrogacy 101 (http://infertilityanswers.typepad.com/surrogacy_101/) even be given a smidgen of interest from the infertile and not so infertile community if there didn't need to be 'more' information, easier understood, presented in a way that didn't intimidate those wanting to learn about the options without spending a dime? Why are there support groups that, by the way, share information from personal experiences with attorneys and doctors to how it feels to take a shot in the butt, like Mothers and Parents via Egg Donation (http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MVED/) and Surrogate Moms Online (http://www.surromomsonline.com/support/index.php). As much as I would like my readers to respond with their thoughts on this topic I want others to HEAR me when I say that when a need is obvious, whether it be continued education, peer support, consulting in a specific personalized field or standing up for those who are in too much pain to do so themselves, is threatened by those who will make a profit by driving out the "middle man" then its time to take a stand.
LONDON – About half of American doctors in a new survey say they regularly give patients placebo treatments — usually drugs or vitamins that won't really help their condition. And many of these doctors are not honest with their patients about what they are doing, the survey found.
That contradicts advice from the American Medical Association, which recommends doctors use treatments with the full knowledge of their patients.
"It's a disturbing finding," said Franklin G. Miller, director of the research ethics program at the U.S. National Institutes Health and one of the study authors. "There is an element of deception here which is contrary to the principle of informed consent."
The study was being published online in Friday's issue of BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal.
Placebos as defined in the survey went beyond the typical sugar pill commonly used in medical studies. A placebo was any treatment that wouldn't necessarily help the patient.
Scientists have long known of the "placebo effect," in which patients given a fake or ineffective treatment often improve anyway, simply because they expected to get better.
"Doctors may be under a lot of pressure to help their patients, but this is not an acceptable shortcut," said Irving Kirsch, a professor of psychology at the University of Hull in Britain who has studied the use of placebos.
Researchers at the NIH sent surveys to a random sample of 1,200 internists and rheumatologists — doctors who treat arthritis and other joint problems. They received 679 responses. Of those doctors, 62 percent believed that using a placebo treatment was ethically acceptable.
Half the doctors reported using placebos several times a month, nearly 70 percent of those described the treatment to their patients as "a potentially beneficial medicine not typically used for your condition." Only 5 percent of doctors explicitly called it a placebo treatment.
Most doctors used actual medicines as a placebo treatment: 41 percent used painkillers, 38 percent used vitamins, 13 percent used antibiotics, 13 percent used sedatives, 3 percent used saline injections, and 2 percent used sugar pills.
In the survey, doctors were asked if they would recommend a sugar pill for patients with chronic pain if it had been shown to be more effective than no treatment. Nearly 60 percent said they would.
Smaller studies done elsewhere, including Britain, Denmark and Sweden, have found similar results.
Jon Tilburt, the lead author of the U.S. study, who is with NIH's bioethics department, said he believes the doctors surveyed were representative of internists and rheumatologists across the U.S. No statistical work was done to establish whether the survey results would apply to other medical specialists, such as pediatricians or surgeons.
The research was paid for by NIH's bioethics department and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
The authors said most doctors probably reasoned that doing something was better than doing nothing.
In some cases, placebos were given to patients with conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome. Doctors also gave antibiotics to patients with viral bronchitis, knowing full well that a virus is impervious to antibiotics, which fight bacteria. Experts believe overuse of antibiotics promotes the development of drug-resistant strains of bacteria.
Some doctors believe placebos are a good treatment in certain situations, as long as patients are told what they are being given. Dr. Walter Brown, a professor of psychiatry at Brown and Tufts universities, said people with insomnia, depression or high blood pressure often respond well to placebo treatments.
"You could tell those patients that this is something that doesn't have any medicine in it but has been shown to work in people with your condition," he suggested.
However, experts don't know if the placebo effect would be undermined if patients were explicitly told they were getting a dummy pill.
Brown said that while he hasn't prescribed sugar pills, he has given people with anxiety problems pills that had extremely low doses of medication. "The dose was so low that whatever effect the patients were getting was probably a placebo effect," he said.
Kirsch, the psychologist, said it might be possible to get the psychological impact without using a fake pill. "If doctors just spent more time with their patients so they felt more reassured, that might help," he said.
Some patients who had just seen their doctors at a clinic in London said the truth was paramount.
"I would feel very cheated if I was given a placebo," said Ruth Schachter, an 86-year-old Londoner with skin cancer. "I like to have my eyes wide open, even if it's bad news," she said. "If I'm given something without being warned what it is, I certainly would not trust the doctor again."
