Jennifer's profilethoughts born of boredomPhotosBlogListsMore Tools Help
    November 14

    Are we morally obliged to be lab rats should we beat the odds?

    Well now this is a head scratcher.  I have so many questions as a result of this article (many of which will probably never be answered).  Since the article says that they retested the DNA can we assume that the initial test was not a false positive?  If we assume that and can come to a belief that this gentleman really has beaten the AIDS virus, is he morally responsible to the AIDS community?  Should he undergo intense scrutiny and testing to assist in discovering how and why he beat the virus that has baffled so many for so long and caused countless lives to be lost?  Is he morally obliged to those suffering around him, including his partner?  Or should he be allowed to live in peace if he so chooses?  Well, I know where my vote lies but I do not wish to prejudice anyone else, yet.  Read the article listed below and let me know what you think.  
     
     
    The Scotsman Mon 14 Nov 2005

    Scot, 25, first to shake off HIV

    RHIANNON EDWARD

     

    Key points


    • Andrew Stimpson was diagnosed as HIV-positive in August 2002
    • 14 months later tests indicated that the virus had gone
    • At present Mr Stimpson has declined to undertake further tests

     

    Key quote


    "This appears to be a highly unusual case and without further tests it really is impossible to draw any conclusions for people living with HIV." - Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust

     

    Story in full

     

    A SCOTTISH man is believed to have become the first person in the world to beat HIV.

    Andrew Stimpson, 25, was diagnosed as HIV-positive in August 2002. However, tests 14 months later showed the virus had completely gone from his body, despite taking no medication to combat it.

    His doctors are adamant there were no mix-ups with his tests and have urged him to come forward for medical research to help the quest to find a cure for HIV, which causes AIDS.

    Mr Stimpson, from Largs, Ayrshire, said: "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for AIDS. It is scary and confusing, but it makes me feel very special."

    He added: "I have no idea how I got rid of the virus. I was just taking daily supplements to keep myself as healthy as possible so as not to get full-blown AIDS."

    Mr Stimpson, who lives in London with his 44-year-old HIV-positive partner, Juan Gomez, was told he had the virus in August 2002.

    More than a year later, and baffled by his continuing good health, doctors at Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust tested him again.

    The results came back negative and Mr Stimpson began legal action against the trust, convinced there had been a mistake with the original diagnosis. But an extensive investigation, including DNA testing on his blood samples, has confirmed all the results.

    NHS lawyers wrote to Mr Stimpson on 10 October this year, urging him to contact doctors about his "exceptional and medically remarkable" recovery.

    "I can confirm that he has a positive and a negative test," a hospital spokeswoman said yesterday.

    "When we became aware of his HIV-negative result we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation. So far he has declined. We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."

    However, those working with AIDS patients urged caution. Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust, said: "This appears to be a highly unusual case and without further tests it really is impossible to draw any conclusions for people living with HIV."

    Roy Kilpatrick, chief executive of voluntary organisation HIV Scotland, said the story had raised a lot of questions and would require further investigation.

    "There is no scientific precedent for it," he said. "This case requires a huge amount of study and for Mr Stimpson to be in regular contact with medical experts and scientists."

    There are an estimated 3,000 HIV-positive people in Scotland - and at least as many again who do not know they have the virus.

    A spokeswoman for the Terence Higgins Trust said that although there had been unconfirmed reports of HIV-positive "recoveries" in Africa, it was completely unheard of in the UK. The African cases are believed to be the result of inaccurate tests.

    "HIV tests, like many diagnostic tests, aren't 100 per cent accurate," she said. "They are extremely rare, but you do sometimes get false positive or negative results."

    A deadly legacy

    AIDS, or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, was responsible for 3.5 million deaths worldwide last year.

    It comes about as a result of the immune system being depleted because of infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). HIV is transmitted when there is direct contact between a mucus membrane and a bodily fluid, such as blood, semen, vaginal fluid or breast milk.

    There is no known cure for AIDS, although some complications can be prevented or delayed.

    Comments (15)

    Please wait...
    Sorry, the comment you entered is too long. Please shorten it.
    You didn't enter anything. Please try again.
    Sorry, we can't add your comment right now. Please try again later.
    To add a comment, you need permission from your parent. Ask for permission
    Your parent has turned off comments.
    Sorry, we can't delete your comment right now. Please try again later.
    You've exceeded the maximum number of comments that can be left in one day. Please try again in 24 hours.
    Your account has had the ability to leave comments disabled because our systems indicate that you may be spamming other users. If you believe that your account has been disabled in error please contact Windows Live support.
    Complete the security check below to finish leaving your comment.
    The characters you type in the security check must match the characters in the picture or audio.

    To add a comment, sign in with your Windows Live ID (if you use Hotmail, Messenger, or Xbox LIVE, you have a Windows Live ID). Sign in


    Don't have a Windows Live ID? Sign up

    Picture of Anonymous
    csprissler wrote:
    I don't think there is a purpose to us being here. I think it just happened by chance.

    Our desire to find meaning in our existance, or to be "part of some undertaking", I think, is a trait we have evolved to encourage good social structure and cooperation as a species.

    For some people that may take the romance out of stories of self-sacrifice and heroism, but it doesn't ruin it at all for me.
    Nov. 18
    Picture of Anonymous
    never_cry_wolfe_virginia wrote:
    HMMM... "part of some great undertaking." You bring up a very interesting sidenote. Is there a purpose to us being here? If so what is it? For you to believe that there is a purpose do you need to believe in a creator (whether that be God or even maybe not a creator but that which is necessary to exist so that creation may take place ... a.k.a The One [Plato])?

    As for the AIDS research, I agree that we do not know everything that researchers are doing. Case in point, I did not have any idea about these African prostitutes that you mention until I read your comment (but in my defense I was young when this story would have first hit the papers). I have found an interesting article regarding the testing and conclusions that these women have provided AIDS researchers. If you are interested, check it out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/619316.stm
    Nov. 17
    Picture of Anonymous
    JustMissUnderstanding wrote:
    Not only were there cases of "spontaneous recovery" but also prostitutes in AIDS ravaged slums that never contracted the virus, even though most of those with whom they interacted had long since fallen ill. Two of which were sisters. Should this lead us to believe that some people are naturally immune? Or is it like the Stimpson case... and they eventually were able to fight it off.
    I remember seeing that report at least... 10 years ago! Who says they didn't look into? What do we actually know? As far as the general public goes, maybe we are on a need-to-know basis! Maybe there is a lot of things "they" ( the big boys in charge ) know that we don't!
    I don't believe that we, the public know all the little details of every little experiment that is done... makes my skin crawl! Sorry, I'm rambling... just thought I'd throw in a conspiracy theory!
    Nov. 16
    Picture of Anonymous
    csprissler wrote:
    Yeah, you did call him Simpson, and it confused the heck out of me! I had to go find the article myself! ;)
    Nov. 16
    Picture of Anonymous
    csprissler wrote:
    Very well thought out! You seem to have a very definite sense of personal rights...I agree wholeheartedly with that. It's hard to argue for "moral obligation" - it's easily shot down with the old "I didn't ask to be born" response. I guess it's just my own personal feeling of obligation, which possibly stems from a desire to be part of some great undertaking. I suppose that when it comes down to it, all matters of conscience and morality are personal.

    I can take a stab at answering your 2 questions...

    1. Edward Jenner did not experiment on himself because children were more expendable in those days. The idea of kids being the most valuable resource is a new concept. Jenner's family relied on him, and so did the surrounding country community. After experimenting on 8y old James Phipps, he tested the vaccine on a number of other children including his own son. http://www.researchpractice.com/archive/vuln.shtml

    2. I'd say that the reason those reports of recoveries weren't followed up in Africa is that the healthcare workers there probably brushed off the stories as mistakes, in part because of how swamped they are with HIV cases. They have way too much to do without chasing down every little anecdote, and hardly the facilities or resources available to devote to what could amount to little more than rumour. It's not a good reason, but it's the best I can think up right now!
    Nov. 16
    Picture of Anonymous
    never_cry_wolfe_virginia wrote:
    I just noticed I called him Simpson ... oops
    Nov. 16
    Picture of Anonymous
    never_cry_wolfe_virginia wrote:
    I am so glad you brought up the Nazi trials as that is one of the thoughts that I myself had while I was thinking through the issue. The other thing that I keep thinking of is PETA. If there are such firm supporters of the rights of animals I wonder where they would stand on this issue.

    Now, moving on: you want my opinion ...?

    As simple as a request as that is, my answer may be a little more convoluted than expected. I am intrigued by your arguments regarding moral duties and "social contracts" but I cannot accept them (however, that does not mean I disagree with your conclusions, but we will get to that later).

    My initial reaction to this information was that Andrew Simpson has no obligation or responsibilty to anyone other than himself and those he loves (*one of whom has the HIV virus*). Then I began debating the other side because I thought "I am always promoting the idea that the rights of the group are more important than the rights of every individual. How can I justify giving this man these rights and disregarding the rights of so many others?" After much deliberation I came to the conclusion that there is a big difference between this man's rights in this circumstance and previous arguments I have made where the rights of the group should overshadow the rights of the individual.

    All that being said I do believe that if the procedures are minimally invasive Andrew should subject himself to them. I think that if Andrew loves his HIV positive partner he should be willing to undergo testing that may be beneficial to him (so long as it is minimally invasive and he consents). If the testing is more than minimally invasive then I think he really needs to decide how much he loves this individual and whether he is willing to undergo physical discomfort and/or pain for him.

    As for the good of the AIDS community, if the testing is minimally invasive I think he should have the testing done not because he is obliged to do so or b/c of a social contract but b/c there is the possibility that he may be able to help others. Athough we live in a selfish society I have never agreed with that and think that we should help others if we can, so long as the cost to ourselves is not too great (as I think we can see this may be where I begin to dislike the story about vaccinations ... although I do wonder why Jenner did not test on himself. Why did he think the young boy's life was worth risking over his own? I know you can make the argument that had the vaccination not worked and had he tested on himself he would have been unable to continue work on the vaccine therefore done nothing for society but still, why the boy? But I digress). If the cost to Andrew is what he considers too great I do not think he should undergo testing at all.

    Finally, a couple more thoughts for you to ponder. The article reports cases of spontaneous recovery in Africa that pre-date Andrews recovery. Why were these cases never followed-up? Sure the testing done in Africa may be more prone to error but if there have been numerous reports should it not have been investigated? Why is it that only now that a case has been discovered in the UK is there such an interest in the possibilty of spontaneous recovery?

    I think this comment is long enough, so I will save something for later.
    Nov. 16
    Picture of Anonymous
    JustMissUnderstanding wrote:
    Wow... well put! I like the idea of the volunteer fire fighter. The possibility of Mr. Stimpson holding out for money is abhorrent to be, I would hope that isn't the case! Research is research as far as I'm concerned...

    ...Damn you've given me something to think about!!
    Nov. 16
    Picture of Anonymous
    csprissler wrote:
    This story reminds me of the story of the first smallpox vaccine. Dr. Edward Jenner hypothesized that injecting people with coxpox-related antibodies would prevent people from getting smallpox. He managed to convince a friend to allow him to inject the man's son with an extract from a coxpox pustule, and then attempted to infect the boy with smallpox. The cure worked, and the boy did not fall ill. This was the advent of vaccinations, a practice of immeasurable value to all of us.

    Andrew Stimpson should obviously have testing done, but I don't think it would be ethical to force him.

    That would establish a precedent of forcing medical testing/experimentation on unconsenting people "for the good of the whole" and that is only a hair's breadth away from those crazy Nazi doctors who experimented on human beings - and whose research is still benefitting humankind to this day.

    I do agree that he has a moral obligation to submit to further tests, though. I am a big believer in "social contracts" - you owe everything you have to society and the millions of people who preceded you, so you should do whatever is in your power to further the human cause. (which, in my opinion, is a dignified and fulfilling avoidance of extinction) In other words, Andrew Stimpson probably wouldn't be here if it weren't for that kid in the first story, so he must exhibit the same courage and risk severe pain and permanent damage. But he cannot be subjected to it without his consent.

    I have mixed feelings about offering people money to sell themselves into medical experimentation. Maybe he has been offered money, or maybe he is holding out in hopes that he will be paid.

    Or, maybe he is more like a volunteer firefighter.
    Nov. 16
    Picture of Anonymous
    JustMissUnderstanding wrote:
    Good points! For sure he should be compensated... after all we are putting millions into researching these kinds of diseases! I'm all for it let's pay him... of course there is the possibilty that he has been offered compensation already. If not, then it is only a matter of time I think. As for the physical invasion of privacy... well it will be his own choice, whatever he can handle. Like I've already said... by no means should he be forced to endure psychological/physical pain or humiliation! What are your thoughts? Is it his duty? To what extent? Should he be compensated? Does anyone else have any views on this?
    Nov. 16
    Picture of Anonymous
    never_cry_wolfe_virginia wrote:
    One could argue that firefighters get paid to risk their lives everyday. What does this gentleman get should he agree to be a guinea pig?

    As for his privacy, although I do agree with the point that we are infringing on his privacy by carrying on a conversation regarding what he should and shouldn't do that is nothing compared to a physical invasion of privacy should he agree to testing.
    Nov. 16
    Picture of Anonymous
    JustMissUnderstanding wrote:
    Well my belief system is that we do have a duty to our fellow human beings. To what extent... well that depends on the individual, there are firefighters that run into burning buildings time and again to save total strangers, continually putting their lives in jeopardy... To what extent are we obliged... I guess that all depends again on the individual, but shouldn't we be obliged to try? Everybody should be entitled to their privacy, but isn't that already a moot point since we are discussing what this guy should/shouldn't do? I think history has taught us that yes, the greater good is more important than the individual. That being said... I don't agree that we should step all over this man's constitutional rights, he shouldn't be forced to do or endure anything that he doesn't want to i.e. pain/discomfort/personal injury. It all boils down to personal choice. My personal choice would be to do as much as I possibly could... short of death, I'm no martyr!
    Nov. 15
    Picture of Anonymous
    never_cry_wolfe_virginia wrote:
    I guess our duties as human being depends on your belief system. Do we have duties as human beings? If so, to what extent are we obliged to other individuals? What about this individuals rights to privacy? Is the greater good more important than the good of the individual? What if being a guinea pig results in personal injury? Is this individual responsible to undergo pain and/or discomfort for the good of others? And if he is responsible to do so at what point can he stop?
    Nov. 15
    Picture of Anonymous
    Dictator_Russell wrote:
    I agree. It is scarey how many sites you go to, and can hardly understand most of what is on the page...even though it IS English! Gahh!
    Nov. 15
    Picture of Anonymous
    JustMissUnderstanding wrote:
    I believe this man should have further testing done... at least to a resonable extent. If I were in this man's position I certainly would, and I should hope that others feel the same. After all isn't it our duties as human beings to help or aid as many people as possible. If being a human guinea pig for awhile could potentially save millions of lives then I would and he should! Who knows what the cause is for his miraculous recovery... maybe something in his genetics alone, and we won't know unless he steps forward! Lucky, lucky, lucky... use protection people!!
    Nov. 15

    Trackbacks

    The trackback URL for this entry is:
    http://saintlyhellion.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!BED2319A10D150B9!745.trak
    Weblogs that reference this entry
    • None