06-03-2010, 11:46 PM
More from Judyth:
Here is the truth, where we did something akin to this--see the following link--back in 1963:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/local/k...tor-injects.htm
Updated Friday, August 7, 2009 10:01 am TWN, The China Post news staff:
Doctor injects cancer cells in insurance scam
KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan -- Investigators recently cracked a health insurance scam involving a doctor injecting cancerous cells into patients with their knowledge, local media reported yesterday.
The defrauders altogether swindled over NT$20 million in payouts from insurance firms, noted the media.
Hsu Shi-zheng, a former attending physician with the obstetrics and gynecology department at the Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital, and his partner in crime, Lee Mao-chang, would seek out women with relatively poor uterine health and have them sign up for critical illness insurance policies with multiple insurers, the media said.
According to reports, Hsu would then extract cancerous cells from another patient with malignant cell growth and inject the healthy women with cancerous cells during “procedures.”
Investigators were tipped when an insurer found inconsistencies in the records of one of the women, surnamed Lin. She reported a thin income, yet paid premiums in sums of several thousands of dollars from an account that was under Lee's name, said reports.
Officers eventually sent the ovarian tissue sample with which Lin's “cancer” was diagnosed to Mackay Memorial Hospital, where it was later revealed via a DNA test that the malignant growth did not match her own cells.
Hsu was apprehended when authorities issued a search warrant late June.
Nonconsensual Medical Experiments on Human Beings
(1997) by Ronald B. Standler, which may be found at
http://www.rbs2.com/humres.htm#anchor491511
![[Image: wmjo7p.jpg]](http://i45.tinypic.com/wmjo7p.jpg)
4. injections of cancer cells
There were intradermal injections of live human cancer cells into 22 chronically ill, debilitated non-cancer patients in 1963 without their consent in the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital case, to learn if foreign cancer cells would live longer in debilitated non-cancer patients than in patients debilitated by cancer. Lump at injection site disappeared approximately seven weeks after injection. Research funded by U.S.P.H.S. and American Cancer Society. The subjects were not told that the injection contained cancer cells, because the physicians "did not wish to stir up any unnecessary anxieties in the patients" who had "phobia and ignorance" about cancer. Physicians claim each patient gave "oral consent", but a material fact was not disclosed to patient and many of the patients were not in a physical or mental condition to give valid consent. Hospital administration tried to cover-up lack of consent, and some written consents were fraudulently obtained after the fact. Three physicians at the Hospital resigned when the administration did not seriously consider their complaints about the experiment. The chief of medicine at JCDH and the principal investigator were placed on probation for one year by the New York State medical licensing board, as a result of a unanimous guilty verdict on fraud/deceit and unprofessional conduct. Two years later, the American Cancer Society elected the principal investigator to be their Vice-President.
Hyman 251 N.Y.S.2d 818 (1964), rev'd 258 N.Y.S.2d 397 (1965) (litigation regarding whether director of hospital could have access to patients' medical records) and Katz, Experimentation with Human Beings (1972), pp. 9-65, recounts more than you want to know about this experiment, including affidavits of physicians on both sides.
In passing, it is noted that several hundred postoperative gynecology patients at Memorial Hospital had the same injections, also without consent, but there was no fuss about that. (Katz at 11, 23, 27, 37) Why was it necessary to inject human cancer cells into more than 300 healthy subjects; wouldn't a smaller number of subjects be adequate? There seems to be a genuine scientific controversy about whether the injections were dangerous: some cancer experts said that it was impossible to transplant human cancer cells from one person to another, as the donee's body would reject the foreign cells. But there is one documented case of transplantation of melanoma from daughter to mother (Katz at 309). And several physicians testified that the injected cells might produce cancer years later.
If a physician were to ask healthy people if they would willingly agree to have live cancer cells injected into them, the healthy people would certainly say "NO!" The practical result is that, if this research is to be performed on a large number of subjects, the physician performs his experiment on non-consenting patients. This point raises a number of interesting questions. Is this experiment so important to society that the requirement of informed consent should be suspended? Is it really necessary to have a large number of subjects, or could we get adequate information from experiments on a few brave volunteers? I believe informed consent is always necessary when subjects are participating in an experiment that can not benefit them.
Here is the truth, where we did something akin to this--see the following link--back in 1963:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/local/k...tor-injects.htm
Updated Friday, August 7, 2009 10:01 am TWN, The China Post news staff:
Doctor injects cancer cells in insurance scam
KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan -- Investigators recently cracked a health insurance scam involving a doctor injecting cancerous cells into patients with their knowledge, local media reported yesterday.
The defrauders altogether swindled over NT$20 million in payouts from insurance firms, noted the media.
Hsu Shi-zheng, a former attending physician with the obstetrics and gynecology department at the Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital, and his partner in crime, Lee Mao-chang, would seek out women with relatively poor uterine health and have them sign up for critical illness insurance policies with multiple insurers, the media said.
According to reports, Hsu would then extract cancerous cells from another patient with malignant cell growth and inject the healthy women with cancerous cells during “procedures.”
Investigators were tipped when an insurer found inconsistencies in the records of one of the women, surnamed Lin. She reported a thin income, yet paid premiums in sums of several thousands of dollars from an account that was under Lee's name, said reports.
Officers eventually sent the ovarian tissue sample with which Lin's “cancer” was diagnosed to Mackay Memorial Hospital, where it was later revealed via a DNA test that the malignant growth did not match her own cells.
Hsu was apprehended when authorities issued a search warrant late June.
Nonconsensual Medical Experiments on Human Beings
(1997) by Ronald B. Standler, which may be found at
http://www.rbs2.com/humres.htm#anchor491511
4. injections of cancer cells
There were intradermal injections of live human cancer cells into 22 chronically ill, debilitated non-cancer patients in 1963 without their consent in the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital case, to learn if foreign cancer cells would live longer in debilitated non-cancer patients than in patients debilitated by cancer. Lump at injection site disappeared approximately seven weeks after injection. Research funded by U.S.P.H.S. and American Cancer Society. The subjects were not told that the injection contained cancer cells, because the physicians "did not wish to stir up any unnecessary anxieties in the patients" who had "phobia and ignorance" about cancer. Physicians claim each patient gave "oral consent", but a material fact was not disclosed to patient and many of the patients were not in a physical or mental condition to give valid consent. Hospital administration tried to cover-up lack of consent, and some written consents were fraudulently obtained after the fact. Three physicians at the Hospital resigned when the administration did not seriously consider their complaints about the experiment. The chief of medicine at JCDH and the principal investigator were placed on probation for one year by the New York State medical licensing board, as a result of a unanimous guilty verdict on fraud/deceit and unprofessional conduct. Two years later, the American Cancer Society elected the principal investigator to be their Vice-President.
Hyman 251 N.Y.S.2d 818 (1964), rev'd 258 N.Y.S.2d 397 (1965) (litigation regarding whether director of hospital could have access to patients' medical records) and Katz, Experimentation with Human Beings (1972), pp. 9-65, recounts more than you want to know about this experiment, including affidavits of physicians on both sides.
In passing, it is noted that several hundred postoperative gynecology patients at Memorial Hospital had the same injections, also without consent, but there was no fuss about that. (Katz at 11, 23, 27, 37) Why was it necessary to inject human cancer cells into more than 300 healthy subjects; wouldn't a smaller number of subjects be adequate? There seems to be a genuine scientific controversy about whether the injections were dangerous: some cancer experts said that it was impossible to transplant human cancer cells from one person to another, as the donee's body would reject the foreign cells. But there is one documented case of transplantation of melanoma from daughter to mother (Katz at 309). And several physicians testified that the injected cells might produce cancer years later.
If a physician were to ask healthy people if they would willingly agree to have live cancer cells injected into them, the healthy people would certainly say "NO!" The practical result is that, if this research is to be performed on a large number of subjects, the physician performs his experiment on non-consenting patients. This point raises a number of interesting questions. Is this experiment so important to society that the requirement of informed consent should be suspended? Is it really necessary to have a large number of subjects, or could we get adequate information from experiments on a few brave volunteers? I believe informed consent is always necessary when subjects are participating in an experiment that can not benefit them.