Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Arthur Caplan Ethics Dynasty

  1. #1

    Arthur Caplan Ethics Dynasty

    This guy doesn't miss a chance. If researchers were as busy as him selling himself the cure woulda been here long ago. He is in the news everyday and eating up money that could actually go to helpful programs. I also feel he might have instigated the schatten hwang affair.

    none the less here is his story today.

    Penn's Center for Bioethics Launches Vaccine Ethics Project

    To: National Desk

    Contact: David Curry, 267-251-2305 or david.r.curry@drcurryassociates.net; Kate Olderman of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 215-349-8369 or kate.olderman@uphs.upenn.edu

    PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine today announced the beginning of an 18-month project to examine the field of vaccine development and use, and propose an ethical framework to help guide researchers, pharmaceutical companies, public-health agencies, health-care providers, and citizens regarding vaccines and their safe, effective, and ethical use.

    A team of leading physicians, public-health officials, academics from the University of Pennsylvania and other leading institutions, media representatives, and others are beginning deliberations to lay the groundwork for the project.

    "Just as Hurricane Katrina uncovered a number of very unacceptable realities associated with our nation's preparedness and our response to the poorest of our citizens, the prospect of an avian flu pandemic - and it is still a prospect - is bringing into sharp focus where we need to prioritize our energies in terms of the ethics around the role of vaccine in global public health," said Arthur Caplan, PhD, Director of Penn's Center for Bioethics and Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics at the medical school.

    To that end, the Ethics of Vaccines Project has assembled a very strong team of experts from the academic, governmental, and private-sector communities to provide an in-depth examination of the issues. "Our goal is to develop a robust ethical framework to help move this area of our public-health infrastructure forward," noted Caplan. "After monitoring the global vaccines field for the last year, Penn's Center for Bioethics received initial funding to launch a series of interdisciplinary seminars to engage the issues around the ethics of vaccines."
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/2005120...project306_xml
    Last edited by bigbob; 12-09-2005 at 11:52 PM.
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  2. #2
    I posted this in another forum in reply to Lynnifer.

    bigbob vbmenu_register("postmenu_374234", true);
    Senior Member



    Join Date: Oct 2002
    Posts: 3,274


    Lynnifer, something about him pisses me off also. In 2000 he was sued. Originally they were doing a clinical trial on critically ill babies with no chance of surviving, he stepped in and said it is not right because they can't consent nor could their grief sticken parents consent, so doctors had to chose other people for the experiment. One of new group of older patients died and his family sued Caplan. Here is what some other professionals think

    Quote:
    Caplan directs a staff of 40 at what is probably the largest bioethics center in the world. It offers advice to everyone from biowarfare experts to biotech companies to patient advocacy groups. Caplan has been profiled by Time and People, earns upwards of $250,000 in salary alone((((that was in 2000, who knows what it is now)))) and appears on TV almost as often as Jesse Ventura did when he wore tights.
    Some colleagues think Caplan is a bit glib. "There were a lot of smirking bioethicists when they heard the news," one colleague said. And for conservative doctors and researchers who view bioethicists as airy-fairy gasbags with their heads in the clouds, Caplan is a lightning rod.
    "I think this case demonstrates a weakness of bioethics as it's practiced by Art Caplan," says Henry I. Miller, a longtime FDA official who is now a fellow at the Hoover Institution. "He allowed the canons of the field to get in the way of common sense."
    Caplan's advice may meet the criteria of informed consent, but it defies common sense, says Miller, who thinks the experiment should have been done on critically ill babies, not Gelsinger, who had his condition under control before entering the trial.
    "When you're about to test a speculative and potentially dangerous medical intervention, you try to do it on people who are unlikely to be worse off than if they hadn't undergone the intervention," Miller says.
    Caplan can't escape responsibility for the death, Miller says. Although it was up to Penn's Institutional Review Board to approve the research design he recommended, "When the great Arthur Caplan holds forth, I think the IRB would have to take his comments very seriously."
    George Annas, a friend and colleague of Caplan's who teaches at Boston University, concurs; a smart lawyer could argue that a researcher or IRB might face repercussions if they ignore advice from someone like Caplan.
    "He's quoted in the New York Times every day and now he tells us he didn't think they'd take his advice seriously? Who's he kidding," Annas says. "But he didn't give bad advice. It was good advice." http://www.salon.com/health/feature/...an/index1.html
    Last edited by bigbob; 12-10-2005 at 12:32 AM.
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  3. #3
    Here's another current one Caplan got in hundreds of news articles

    "Practicing medicine without seeing the patient is still a dangerous thing," said Arthur Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "From the doctor's point of view, it's not standard of care." http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...one-docs_x.htm
    And another current one

    Caplan criticized the French surgeons for failing to open their protocols to ensure that a patient was prepared for the risks. For this procedure, he said, prospective patients are not really capable of informed consent because of their desperation in facing possible years of isolation and dozens of reconstructive surgeries.
    A solid peer review process and an independent advocate representing the patient is enough to offset problems with informed consent, he said. But in this case, neither happened. "They didn't really circulate their protocol, and that's been criticized inside and outside the country," he said. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/hea...tory?track=rss
    Is he creating an ethics dynasty?
    Last edited by bigbob; 12-09-2005 at 10:27 PM.
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  4. #4
    The pressure to write breakthrough stories, says Caplan, comes from the fact that people are looking for hope - and ``our love of movie and story-book medical heroics.'' You remember those tearjerker movies where the doctor discovers, overnight, a cure for diabetes or polio.
    So are there any genuine medical breakthroughs? According to Caplan, only four in recent years:
    The molecular revolution - understanding the molecular makeup of diseases.
    Non-invasive imaging, such as CAT scans.
    Psychoactive pharmaceutical drugs to treat mental illness.
    Large-number computer analyses for epidemiology. He did not include any AIDS medications in his success stories. There has been no shortage of AIDS breakthroughs, concluded Caplan, ``but everyone is dead at the end.''
    http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA...9/05170042.htm
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  5. #5
    Nobody should get a story until they produce evidence. No matter how telegenic they are, no matter how many Star Fleet Command uniforms they have, if you don’t show up with a baby or a parent or a DNA test, or some witnesses who are credible, you shouldn’t have a story.
    -- (commenting on the Clonaid Raelian claims of the first cloned baby) http://www.amusingquotes.com/h/c/Arthur_Caplan_1.htm
    So why did he comment on The South Korean situation?

    BTW, the money spent on his dept in his university (in the year 2000 he got over 250,000 in salary and had 40 people working under him also) could have gone to a much more useful purpose. And, did he ever say anything we didn't already think about?

    Here is somemore of Art's costly quotes

    "Bodies aren't the same as Coca-Cola cans."

    "The use of fetuses as organ and tissue donors is a ticking time bomb of bioethics."

    The history of humanity is written in our DNA. Those who dismiss evolution as myth, who insist that evolution has no place in biology textbooks and our children’s classrooms, are wrong. The message our genes send is that Charles Darwin was right.
    Arthur Caplan (Ph.D and Human Genome Ethicist)
    "We still don't have a national system of health care. To have the right to die before you have the right to treatment seems a little bit backward."
    -- Dr. Arthur Caplan, University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics
    Money well spent?
    Last edited by bigbob; 12-10-2005 at 06:49 PM.
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  6. #6
    Caplan says the argument that adult stem cell research could take the place of therapeutic cloning "is confusing things because the whole point about cloning is to get around the rejection problem". Creating an embryo from a patient's own cells would mean any derived tissue would be a perfect match for transplant.
    And the assertion that women would be exploited "is just silly", he told New Scientist. "It makes it sound as if you've got women treated as egg-laying hens." http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6572
    So why was he so upset about Dr. Hwang
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  7. #7
    Who needs this Caplan's comments, Geez he is worse than me



    There is more than one side to most issues, Do you really think one person should decide for us what is ethical?

    And this article about Caplan says:
    In either case, Caplan is a team player, and he does not publicly criticize any researcher who practices under the same roof as he does himself.


    It is obvious that Caplan knows which side his ethical bread is buttered on.


    When Arthur Caplan, an ethics expert, remains silent on alarming ethical crises, in cases where the players are his own colleagues and when his salary and professional future are controlled by the institution that's directly vested in the matter, he services as the university's spin doctor. To be sure, he did not directly praise them. But, of all people, Caplan is the one whose position should be the clearest and loudest when there is an ethical conflict. We should keep in mind, above all, that he participated in planning the clinical trial that took Gelsinger's life, almost as directly as the researchers themselves.

    The answer, I believe, lies with Dr. James M. Wilson. This man is not just a physician, but a financial investor as well. When Jesse was strapped in and catheterized in a hospital room in West Philadelphia, Wilson was almost done with an experiment that was expected to make him very rich and world-famous. After his great experiment proved fatal for young Jesse, he aired his feelings to New York Times journalist Sheryl Gay Stolberg, about whether he should have done anything differently: "At this point, I say no, but I'm continuing to re-evaluate constantly." The journalist continues, describing Wilson as "besieged by worry, about the morale of his staff, about whether his financial sponsors would pull out, about whether patients would continue to volunteer, about whether he would lose his bravado - the death knell for scientist on the cutting edge."


    James Wilson was not embarrassed to say that he has a clear business interest in the experiment that cost Gelsinger his life, nor is he shy about telling the world that he's plagued, not by remorse for being too bold with the risks he put his patient into, but rather by the chance that his business life will be harmed by Jesse's death. With the smell of a dead guinea pig following him around, he won't be half the scientific cowboy we've all grown to know and love.
    http://www.guineapigzero.com/manslaughter.html
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  8. #8

    Exclamation

    This guy doesn't quit, seems he finds a project out of every news item.

    We need to have ethics, but when most come from one place it may not be so ethical in itself

    Here is another Caplan Project

    "Just as Hurricane Katrina uncovered a number of very unacceptable realities associated with our nation's preparedness and our response to the poorest of our citizens, the prospect of an avian flu pandemic - and it is still a prospect - is bringing into sharp focus where we need to prioritize our energies in terms of the ethics around the role of vaccine in global public health," said Arthur Caplan, PhD, Director of Penn's Center for Bioethics and Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics at the medical school.
    To that end, the Ethics of Vaccines Project has assembled a very strong team of experts from the academic, governmental, and private-sector communities to provide an in-depth examination of the issues. "Our goal is to develop a robust ethical framework to help move this area of our public-health infrastructure forward," noted Caplan.
    http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=57843

    He even came out with one on Kentucky Fried Chicken

    COMMENTARY
    By Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.
    MSNBC contributor
    Updated: 7:08 p.m. ET Aug. 12, 2005

    getCSS("3027626")
    Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.
    • document.write('')E-maildocument.write('');


    In the spirit of "no good deed should go unpunished," let us reflect together upon the oddness of the announcement Thursday by Yum Brands Inc. (no, I did not make that name up) that they plan to make their KFC and Pizza Hut restaurants smoke-free.
    The corporate titans at Yum said no-smoking signs will be posted beginning next week at the 1,200 KFC and 1,675 Pizza Hut restaurants across the country that they directly own. It will be up to the other 8,800 outlets owned by franchisees to decide if their customers can no longer top off their extra-crispy chicken, gravy and biscuits with a smoke.

    Click for related story
    KFC, Pizza Hut restaurants going smoke-free



    Story continues below ↓ advertisement //');//]]>&ltscript&gt&lt/script&gt


    Now, I am not a critic of making restaurants smoke-free. I have no sympathy for the standard libertarian line that goes "if you don’t want to eat in a restaurant where smokers congregate, eat at home." In my opinion, all restaurants should be smoke-free — not just because inhaling secondhand smoke is known to reduce your odds in the long run of coming back for seconds, but because, among other things, smoke stinks. It ruins the taste of food.
    Restaurants are places to eat. Smoking has no more place in a restaurant than does burning your trash. Smoking can be done outside. Your freedom ends at the end of my fork. There is no ethical case — absolutely none — for allowing smoking in restaurants. (Satisfied now, all you anti-smoking zealots? I have been assimilated.)

    Fast food has its place and while I cannot stand the "pizza" at Pizza Hut, the greasy, cholesterol-infused offerings at KFC do have their artery-clogging charms.
    No, my problem with Yum taking the high road when it comes to demon tobacco is that this is a company that took the low road in a big way when it came to public health. This is the same company that took the "Fried" out of Kentucky Fried Chicken and opted for the more nutritionally ambiguous name of KFC. They transformed themselves into KFC precisely because they were worried about whether you would buy their products if they kept telling you they were fried.
    "physician, heal thyself." It is hard to lead the charge to improve the nation's health when you are slipping the public mounds of mozzarella cheese, honey barbecued wings and pecan pie.
    Arthur Caplan is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926892/
    Do we need this guy or what?
    Last edited by bigbob; 12-10-2005 at 11:09 PM.
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  9. #9
    BTW, I wonder if it is Ethical for a BIOETHICs czar to be a MSNBC contributor, would that not be a conflict of interest?
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  10. #10
    Celebrities can raise awareness, shatter stigmas and promote healthy behavior. But when their confessions are prompted by seven-figure contracts and orchestrated by corporate marketers, some skepticism is indicated. In certain cases, says University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan, the celebrity pitch is “just a fancy form of prostitution.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3606185/site/newsweek/
    I wonder if Art ever looks in the mirror?
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

Similar Threads

  1. June marks Wheel in Motion event
    By Leo in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-13-2005, 04:30 PM
  2. Stockholm to Host Scandinavia’s Biggest Biotech Event
    By Max in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-06-2003, 11:16 AM
  3. Students organize event, Help raise $1,000 for spinal cord research
    By Leo in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-24-2003, 11:53 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2002, 01:13 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-06-2002, 02:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •