Re:Focused ultrasound: promising and non-invasive (was: ethical issues)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 8:14:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, Carla

uterinefibroids writes:

> including the information concerning a 20% failure

> rate...and that's well beyond the ethical issues raised here...

>

I must respectfully disagree.

1. Is this any different that the " ethical issues " raised by the fact that

doctors profit from *all types* of surgery (and thus, some unscrupulous docs

may do unnecessary procedures)? I don't think so.

2. Should an " ethical issue " at one particular hospital somewhere (this one

in Israel) lead us to reject a promising therapy out of hand? If we all

stopped having procedures because some hospital somewhere or some doctor

somewhere

was unethical....well, none of us would have *any* procedure.

3. Doesn't every procedure have a " failure rate " ? Shouldn't every woman

carefully weigh the risk:benefit ratio for herself? Considering the fact that

this procedure is *completely noninvasive* and that there is relatively very

little risk involved, it may certainly be worth an 80% chance of success for

some

women to try it before resorting to surgery! I am anxious to hear the

reports of the several women here who are currently undergoing trials for this

treatment.

Focused ultrasound, while still in its infancy, has shown great promise as a

therapy not only for fibroids, but for all types of tumors. To my mind, any

research that offers the promise of ultimately benefiting a great number of

people should be encouraged.

For further information, see http://www.insightec.com/

Thanks again for all you do!

Elana