Letters to the editor

E-mail this article Print this article

'Uninformed consent'

Never again assumedoctors have patients'interests at heart

Editor, The Times:

I was so appalled by the exposé on Protocol 126 ("Patients never knew the full dangers of clinical trials on which they staked their lives," Times, March 11) that I find myself not only writing the paper, but writing the individual doctors as well.

Shame, shame on "The Hutch" for allowing Protocol 126 to proceed for 12 years despite all the red flags. I hope that Fred Hutchinson's President Robert Day and the other physicians involved with this despicable "experiment" will be held professionally and personally responsible here.

Never again will the people of Washington state assume that all physicians hold the best interest of their patients at heart - as they advise them about medical treatment options. I hope that each of the participating doctors looks long and hard at the pictures of the young patients they were so willing to put at risk - despite evidence indicating the study was flawed from the outset.

Thanks must be given to those physicians who bravely continued to speak out against the study, despite the possibility that they were endangering their professional careers in the process.

-- Maggie Dunlap Barklind, Bellingham

Invested with hope

Although profoundly upsetting, it was also heartening to learn of the agents of good in this fabric of relationships between patients, doctors, research companies and the profit motive. Since we, as patients, are already thrown into impossible-to-ignore introductions to death, and fear and trembling, it is shattering to learn of such behavior on the part of some of the very people we must invest with as much hope and faith as we can give someone else.

To learn that some have become essentially fodder for experiments that kill predictably and put money in the pockets of the caregivers is beyond terrible.

As for the doctors and companies who participated in these experiments and who profited from them, ignoring their own information, and feeling, as Dr. Paul J. Martin so chillingly said: "I don't think survival is the best measure of outcome in these studies," I look for compassion in my heart and know it will take me time to find it.

-- Elizabeth Davidson, Bainbridge Island

What does Times gain?

In fairness to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, you could have put their rebuttal letter on the front page instead of Page 8 ("Research center response to Times stories," Times, March 12).

The looming question is, what does your paper have to gain by vilifying a center that offers hope to so many people with life-threatening diseases, that has a national reputation for quality humanistic care of their patients, and saves many lives in the process. Last year, 98,000 people died in this country due to medical errors! Are you going to investigate all the excellent Seattle hospitals and fill in your readers on the "dangers" lurking within them?

Perhaps you are looking to win a Pulitzer Prize for this type of exposé journalism, but you have lost the respect of this reader and hopefully many others as well ... especially those who are still alive and well due to their treatment at "The Hutch."

-- Linda Flanagan, Stanwood

It's the American way

Whew! I must say, The Seattle Times published a rather scathing article about the unselfish and tireless dedication of three outstanding and upstanding physicians (Drs. E. Donnall Thomas, Paul J. Martin, and John A. Hansen) to the advancement of medical knowledge while treating hapless victims of leukemia. Those three gentlemen certainly have all the sympathy I can muster for the heat they will likely have to endure as a consequence of their courageous but ill-advised foray into the hazardous unknowns of clinical research, especially when they had no inkling of the ratio of potential benefit to cost. Or did they?

And to whom do the debits and credits accrue? Let's see whether I have the facts straight, as reported in the article. Of 82 patients, each of whom presumably paid "... about $200,000 ... for the best treatment money could buy," only 20 "died from causes attributable to treatment." OK, that's a mere $4 million, give or take a few cents.

On the other side of the ledger, "The value of Thomas' original stock is about $5 million ... and Martin's $525,000. Hansen's shares are worth $9 million." What's wrong with that? Isn't it the American way for members of society to persevere in their quest to make a fair return on investments, despite unforeseen setbacks?

Well, there is plenty wrong with it. To say the least, it is an interesting concept to impose unconscionably high fees on a cancer-stricken volunteer for clinical research on a product of unknown efficacy or safety in non-human animals, especially when there is no provision for refund or reparation in the event of iatrogenic death - and to reward the researchers with an up-front largesse that presumably would go a long way toward ensuring their cooperation in such premature research on efficacy.

Need I say that my aforementioned sympathy has soured and turned to pity?

-- Albert Koltveit, Port Ludlow

Mardi Gras

Summit results

I read with interest Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske's claim that a summit of top police commanders from four cities has "totally affirmed" his decisions during Seattle's Fat Tuesday riot in Pioneer Square ("Cities swap ugly-crowd notes: Nothing worked against Mardi Gras mayhem," Times, March 12).

I am certain that the good news made Kris Kime's mother feel much better. I wonder if Chief Kerlikowske is interested in the results of a summit of my neighbors who are absolutely outraged by the lack of performance of his police department.

-- Richard King, Seattle

Northern neighbor

Treaties mean little

Apparently, Norm Maleng does not appreciate Canada's reluctance to provide speedy extradition for criminals risking the death penalty in Washington state ("Maleng won't seek death penalty," Times, March 9). His following sentence had a chilling effect on me: "I am personally troubled by the idea that a foreign government can restrict the application of our state law for a crime that occurred within our borders."

Never mind that "foreign governments" have signed extradition treaties with the U.S. specifically spelling out the conditions under which such extradition can be requested. Maybe Maleng wishes to return to the status quo ante, when there were no extradition treaties?

His sentence underlines a worrying trait that I found among far too many U.S. politicians: the willingness to discard any constraint imposed by international treaties whenever it suits them. In effect, in good old-fashioned "us" against "them," they tell the rest of world: "Don't dare to tell us what to do; we know better and, anyway, we are the biggest." No way to win friends and no way to build a better world.

Maleng's implied threat is clear to any Canadian (we have become experts at reading between U.S. lines): "Don't bother me with treaties. We will make you sweat for depriving us of a nice and tidy capital punishment. ..."

-- Michel Virard, Montreal, Quebec

Stand on guard

I realize that Charles Champion's mother lives in Sumas in Whatcom County, where he was arrested. However, wouldn't he know that the police in the area would be on the lookout for him?

I think Champion had a different motivation for being in Whatcom County: to escape a possible death penalty. Just like Atif Rafay and Sebastian Burns have.

I wonder if the good people in Canada ever thought about Canada becoming a haven for murderers wanted in the United States?

-- Robert Wheeldon, Seattle