I work in a large academic medical center, and many of my
friends and colleagues are involved in research – specifically research into
how to treat human diseases and conditions.
This week, the nation saw the success – and subsequent
failure – of its first uterus transplant. I think we all felt sadness for the
brave woman who underwent the procedure, as well as for her family and her
doctors. It takes someone special to be the first, because being first at
anything usually means failing.
And as is usually the case when a “first” is announced, the debate
over the use of medical research money has resurfaced. I have written about this before, back when the first face transplant was performed here in the US. I am a great believer that experimental transplants
– and medical research more generally – is as important to improving the
quality of life as it is to extending the duration of it. And as I’ll explain
below, I have a hidden agenda here.
I’ve run research centers before and have seen first-hand
that it’s a difficult rubric, trying to determine who gets funded and for what
research. I think sometimes, as Americans, we have this sense that every
problem is solvable, if only we throw enough time and money at it. In medicine,
I see daily that this simply isn’t the case. There is just some stuff we can’t
solve yet, because it’s just too multi-faceted or we haven’t found the magic
bean yet. Beyond that, making a decision
about what is studied and what isn’t – and by extension, what projects receive
funding for study and which ones don’t – takes some magical combination “How
much?”, “How many?”, “What are the chances of success?”, “Is the scientific foundation in place to make a leap?” and
perhaps most controversially, “Who cares?”
This last one is a toughie; no doubt about it.
The Who Cares equation itself is multi-faceted: The list of
stakeholders includes the researcher him/herself (who needs to feel so much
passion for the problem that s/he is willing to get kicked in the shorts for
years trying to solve it), the institution (which even in funded research
provides a lot more support than most folks appreciate), industry (who needs to
be able to commercialize the outcomes in the case of a drug or device, to justify the huge investment in development), and yes…the
media and the American public. I’d be a
bald-faced liar if I told you there wasn’t a sexiness factor involved.
Last year, I gritted my teeth and smiled through everyone
making a big stir over Ebola and the truly obscene amount of money spent by the
government, pacifying a panicked and shockingly mis-informed legislature and public,
to build multi-million-dollar Ebola containment units. I gritted my teeth because the chances of an
Ebola pandemic here are somewhat lower than our country being wiped out by an
apocalyptic meteor shower, but an infectious disease unit and procedures that
can contain an Ebola outbreak will be equally effective to contain a really
horrific influenza outbreak, too, and we are totally due for one of those. Sometimes, we take advantage of the sexy to
fund the decidedly un-sexy.
So uterus transplants?
Right now, they totally rank on the Who Cares list. Totally sexy. And
important to quality of life for some – so important that they’re willing to
take the risk of death to fulfill their needs. Who am I to say what
makes a life worth living and what risks are acceptable or unacceptable to
another human? Believe me, the people who sign up for experimental transplants
are absolutely aware of the overwhelming risk of failure and death and
disfigurement. I’ve sat on the IRBs and
the ethics reviews for these. I’ve seen
first-hand the consent process. I’ve reviewed the psych testing procedures. If
they and their doctors are willing to take those risks, then I’m not going to
castigate them for it.
If it makes you all feel better, here’s the bigger, harder
and less sexy pay-off. Every time we push
the boundary in transplant, the attention to anti-rejection medications takes
center-stage, too. The community gets a little closer to completing the
break-throughs that will make all transplants safer and improve the quality of
life for those who receive them. We are really close now – less than ten years
away, by my reckoning. (maybe I’ll explain
the process in another post) And that?
That will not only improve lives – it’ll save them.
If your condition, or the condition of a loved one, isn’t on
the list of what’s sexy this year, this can feel so unfair. We all know someone
who suffers from cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, Lupus, asthma, congenital
heart failure, type one diabetes…the list is endless. It’s hard not to say, “Why them? Why not me?
Why not my brother/sister/friend/mother?” My answer is that it’s not so
much “not you” as “not yet”. But
someday. I know what doesn’t sound fair,
and it isn’t. If they ever put me in charge of the universe I’m putting “alleviating
human suffering” on the top of the list.
Pinky-promise. In the meantime, I
think we will all imperfectly do our best to make good decisions.
1 comment:
I am grateful for your perspective. Plus I'm jazzed that you're blogging again.
Post a Comment