Saturday, December 2, 2017

The Ethics Behind Antibiotic Prescriptions

Since the early 1940s and the debut of penicillin into the medical world, society has relied heavily on antibiotics as a “cure-all” for every type of ailment. Antibiotics greatly altered the public’s view of medicine and shunted away the shame often associated with incurable infectious diseases of the time, such as gonorrhea and syphilis. The culture around infection and the pain associated with it, underwent a massive change during this period. Specifically, the relationship between the patient and the physician. The production of penicillin and other strains of antibiotics that came after caused an influx in patients seeking treatment for their newly-curable illnesses. The physician was no longer seen as the trained professional who cured you, but rather, the person who prescribed you medicine that would cure you. Antibiotics are an incredible advancement in their ability to cure fatal infections, however, recent years have seen an adverse effect stemming from their widespread accessibility, namely, antibiotic resistance.
            Antibiotics generally interrupt cell wall or protein synthesis thus rendering bacteria ineffective. This is all well and good, until natural mutation takes place in bacterial cells. Natural selection favors bacterial cells with mutated DNA that protects them from the attacks of antibiotics.  With nonresistant chains of bacteria dying off, more room and resources are available for resistant bacterial strains to proliferate. An example of such a strain would be MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), which underwent a genomic mutation that allows the protein that antibiotics target in the cell to be regenerated, and thus impenetrable.  MRSA is incredibly dangerous, with a casualty rate from 30-50%.
            The issue of antibiotic resistance is not one we should take lightly, nor is it an issue we should dismiss as inevitable. In fact, we are greatly contributing to this issue, and it circles back to the patient physician-relationship that was so greatly altered when antibiotics were introduces in the 1940s. Our mindset around illness changed, and the act of receiving an antibiotic prescription became therapeutic in itself. In many developing countries, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Ghana, and Uzbekistan, 60% of consultations with a physician end in an injection, often of antibiotics. Similarly, the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) estimates that 1 in 3 antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary. The question must be asked, what can be done to stunt the multiplication of resistant strains of bacteria? First, the mindset around antibiotic resistance must be changed, and physicians should exhaust other forms of treatment before prescribing antibiotics. To ignore this issue is to allow more people to be effected by illnesses such as MRSA. We should not shy away from calling physicians out on the careless nature of their prescribing. This issue transcends medical convenience and becomes a serious matter of medical ethics.


Tone, A. (2007). Medicating modern America: prescription drugs in history. New York: New York            Univ. Press.

First U.S. Baby Born After a Uterus Transplant

Last September, a woman at Baylor University Hospital received a uterus transplant. Yesterday, this woman gave birth to her own baby. This marked the first birth via uterine transplant in the United States leaving women born without uteruses or who have undergone a hysterectomy due to cancer or other diseases cheering! Finally, their dreams of carrying and birthing their own child can come true.

This is the first replication of a trial in Sweden where the uterine transplants resulted in 8 live births. It was not without complication though, as the first three transplants carried out at Baylor were failures. The worst case of the three was a women who, within two weeks of transplant, developed an infection that caused life-threatening hemorrhage and required emergency surgery to remove the uterus. Tentatively, the trial was resumed. This woman was the fourth to receive a transplant and 8 of 10 planned trial transplants have occurred. One of the other women is currently pregnant.

Shockingly, the uterine donation can be from a live donor, as was the case with this first successful birth. Taylor Siler decided to donate her uterus after seeing a segment on Baylor's uterine transplant program. She and her husband had already decided they were not going to have any more children (they have 2) and she wanted to offer someone else a shot at motherhood. Siler went through a five hour procedure to have her uterus removed and required 12 weeks for recovery. Siler still has not met the woman who received her uterus, however, the women exchanged letters on transplant day and the day the recipient's pregnancy was announced. Baylor states that they have more than 70 women who have expressed interest in donating their uterus for this study.

While this is a phenomenal achievement, let us discuss the ethics of uterine transplant. The autonomy of both the donor and the recipient were upheld. The donor wanted to help another woman become a mother and the recipient desperately wanted a chance to have her own baby. The principle of beneficence was upheld as the recipient received the best possible outcome, a child.

However, when we become physicians we are asked to take an oath to 'do no harm'. This principle of nonmaleficence is at odds with the case of uterine transplants. We must discuss the real possibility that harm was done to both the donor and the recipient as they were healthy individuals that underwent risky, invasive surgery with a long recovery. Additionally, the recipient had to begin taking anti-rejection medications that her otherwise healthy self would not need. While those who donate and receive other organs must undergo a similar process, these recipients face the same risks of surgery and anti-rejection drugs for a transplant they they, unlike someone with heart or liver failure, do not need to save their lives. The beneficence may not outweigh the maleficence in this case. In regards to justice, we must think about the prohibitive costs of this operation ($500,000 in addition to the cost of the IVF that the recipient must receive) and the fact that by giving each woman who wants to be a mother a uterus, we are potentially depriving a child in need of adoption a family. Finally, after a mother delivers, the uterus is removed and discarded as it is no longer necessary. Is it justifiable to treat an organ from a living donor as a used-then-discarded commodity? This sci-fi-sounding newly feasible option for women without uteruses is exciting but let us not forget to ask, even if we can do it, ought we?

Grady, D. (2017, December 02). Woman With Transplanted Uterus Gives Birth, the First in the U.S. Retrieved December 02, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/health/uterus-transplant-baby.html

Sifferlin, A. (2017, December 1). First Baby in U.S. Born Via Uterus Transplant at Baylor. Retrieved December 02, 2017, from http://time.com/5044565/exclusive-first-u-s-baby-born-after-a-uterus-transplant/




The unimportance of a head

On September 10th, 1945, in Fruita, Colorado the pivotal importance of specific regions of the brain and origins of critical systemic functions were all revealed… by a chicken… named Mike… being decapitated. The headless chicken, however, did not die but instead lived for another 18 months where it eventually died from, no not hypovolemia or brain death but instead of choking on a corn kernel. Mike was able to balance on a perch, clumsily walk, perform grooming behaviors, and crow all without his head. However, without a beak, oropharynx or larynx his crow was more like a gurgling noise. After Mike’s owners saw that he continued to live post-decapitation they were able to sustain him by feeding with a syringe ejecting food into his esophageal opening. Mike gained worldwide attention and began touring the country. On display, it is estimated that he averaged around $4,500 a month in 1945 which translates to approximately $48,300 per month in current time.  
How is this possible? Well, when Mike’s head was cut off it was done above the jugular veins and left the brain stem intact. Clots closed of primary blood vessels and prevented Mike from bleeding out.In the absence of higher brain function, central motor generators are able to carry out basic homeostatic functions.  This is a living example of how important the brain stem really is for systemic function and allowed Mike to remain relatively healthy. The fact that the brainstem was retained was critically important for his survival. The brainstem consists of the midbrain, pons, and medulla oblongata. The medulla oblongata specifically supports autonomic control of heart rate, breathing, blood pressure, and systemic reflexes.
Respiration is either increased or decreased based on levels of acidity in the blood detected by chemoreceptors in the carotid arteries or aorta. A change in pH in the blood would be afferently communicated back to the medulla oblongata where is would efferently send a signal through the phrenic nerve which increases the contraction rate of the intercostal and diaphragm muscles. This inter increases oxygen levels in the blood while decreasing CO2.   
The cardiovascular centre is also located in the medulla oblongata and increases or decreases the stroke volume or amount of blood pumped by the heart based on physiological cues. Again chemoreceptors in the aorta and carotid arteries detected changes in pH and communicate them to the medulla. Changes in blood pressure are also detected by baroreceptors in the aortic and carotid sinuses. The medulla responds to increased pH levels by sending signals to the sinoatrial node through the sympathetic nerve tract in order to increase the strength and repetition of heart contractions. The medulla uses the ever popular vagus nerve to slow the heart and decrease contractility when needed.      
Reflexes like coughing, vomiting, sneezing, and swallowing are also carried out by the medulla. Apparently crowing and grooming also might be controlled by the medulla in chickens. Swallowing is a pharyngeal reflex that helped Mikes heads stub with consuming food.
After better understanding how Mike was able to live post-decapitation it leaves the question of whether a human could survey under the same circumstances. I performed a preliminary investigation in the hopes of finding nothing and fearful of uncovering a morbid and disturbing headless monstrosity. However, instead I found that there is a rare developmental condition called hydranencephaly where the cerebral hemispheres are not developed. The condition can vary in its severity but one child was born with only a brain stem and was able to live for 12 years. There are many other examples of individuals living throughout the world in absence of very large brain structures that were either never developed or removed sometime in their life.  
If you wish to know more about Mike the famous headless chicken then you are welcome to view his history channel documentary or visit his webpage (Links are posted below). You can also participate in the headless chicken 5k marathon or hopefully see me at the 20th annual headless chicken festival celebrated in Fruita, Colorado June 1st and 2nd.   



  
References
Crew, B. (2014, September 26). Meet Miracle Mike, the Colorado Chicken who lived for 18 months without his head. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/meet-miracle-mike-the-chicken-who-lived-for-18-months-without-his-head/
Herkewitz, W. (2017, November 14). How Much of the Brain Do We Really Need? Retrieved from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a13017/how-much-of-the-brain-can-a-person-do-without-17223085/
Hydranencephaly Information Page. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Hydranencephaly-Information-Page
The chicken that lived for 18 months without a head. (2015, September 10). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34198390

G. (2008, September 12). Mike the headless chicken. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqDjRCHyjTY

DNR tattoo

Paramedics brought an unconscious 70-year-old man to the hospital. The man had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation; the man also had an elevated blood alcohol level. Although patients like this one are seen everyday, this man was unique because of his "Do Not Resuscitate" tattoo on his chest. Since the man was unconscious physicians and social attempted to find next of kin and family members. They attempted to decrease his level of unconsciousness, but they all failed. The physicians initially did not want to honor the tattoo and gave him antibiotics and IV fluids. The ethics consultant advised them to respect the patient's DNR tattoo. The consultant claimed that it was reasonable to infer that the patient's tattoo showed a genuine preference. 

This presents a huge ethical dilemma because DNRs can be revoked. I also think that finding some family member could have better assisted them with this struggle. A lot of people have crazy tattoos; for all they know it could have been the title of a song. I think that because of the central location of the tattoo, they assumed that the tattoo was to be seen and understood. While doing their lit review, they also found a patient that their DNR tattoo did not reflect their current wishes. Later, the team found a previous DNR from Florida that the man had signed. I do believe that when it comes to DNRs there should be clearly written documentation. Some patients wear medical bracelets to disclose their medical status; they should also have DNR bracelets in order to avoid any confusion. People are not going to carry DNR documentation everywhere they go, but having a bracelet would make the patient’s request clear. What are your thoughts about DNR tattoos?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1713344#t=article

NovaSure Endometrial Ablation

In November 2015, my mom got a procedure called NovaSure endometrial ablation. This procedure is done on women who experience irregular, heavy menstrual flows that last days past the typically menstrual phase of the uterine cycle. The main side effect of this is heavy pain and cramping. In NovaSure, a device is placed into the uterus of the woman that "destroys the inner lining of the uterus" (the endometrium) through radio-frequency energy (1,2). After the procedure, my mom was told that she would not have her period anymore, and if she did it would not be heavy and last days on end. However, just a few months after the procedure, my mom was seeing side effects her doctor never warned her about.

Unbearable pain, heavy flow that is heavier than ever before, and strange discharge were some of the symptoms my mom complained to her gynecologist about just a few months after the procedure. How could this have happened when her gynecologist said nothing about a period returning with no such side effects and the NovaSure website says nothing about these side effects (2)? The gynecologist had no explanation as to why, but just suggested my mom getting a partial hysterectomy, a procedure in which the whole uterus is removed. From a physiological standpoint, we know that the endometrium grows back every month during the proliferation phase of the uterine cycle from high levels of progesterone. The gynecologist told my mom this would not happen due to scar tissue on the bare end of where the endometrium used to be, but how has she still gotten her period so irregularly, sometimes missing months at a time? This is a hard question to answer since the uterus is so complex.

My mom had told me that there were several civil/class action suits on NovaSure and the FDA from women who experienced similar side effects after the procedure just like she had. I looked into this and found a petition website that is targeting the FDA, the administration that approved the NovaSure procedure (3). In the comments section, I read hundreds of testimonies by women who have experienced similar symptoms my mom had and even worse (like infection and painful sex) just months after the procedure. A lot of their symptoms are still ongoing after years the procedure has been done. Doesn't all of this go against the biomedical ethic of non-malfeasance?

1. Erol, M. (2014). Unnecesasry bleeding, unnecessary suffering: normalcy and necessity of menstruation in promoting NovaSure. Journal of Gender Studies, volume 25, pages 367-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2014.987655
2. NovaSure. (2016). What is NovaSure Endometrial Ablation? Retrieved from http://www.novasure.com/patients/what-novasure-endometrial-ablation
3. White, D. (2017). NOVASURE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. Retrieved from https://www.thepetitionsite.com/287/347/635/novasure-class-action-lawsuit/

Reducing Pain at the Pump

On October 3rd medical history was made regarding the procedure physicians took when installing a HeartMate 3. A HeartMate 3 is the latest version of left ventricular assisting devices (LVADs). It helps assist the heart in pumping blood throughout the body and therefore, supplies oxygen to the organs. Prior to this procedural break through, the normal surgery was to perform a sternotomy. This is an operation that makes a 12-inch inline incision along the sternum exposing the heart and lungs. Such an invasive procedure used to be necessary in order to access the left ventricle and aorta for easier implantation of the HeartMate 3. Now, surgeons only needed to make  about a 2.5 incision on the lower right portion of the chest and a four inch incision on the lower left portion of the chest. This procedure is referred to as a thoracotomy. Shaun Ott was the first ever recipient to receive this type of surgery. This procedure is important especially in Shaun Ott's case due to the future procedures he'll need to endure, a heart transplant being one. In performing the less invasive surgery, the recovery time is shortened and spares the patients from a second sternotomy, which can be very difficult to perform the second time due to the scar tissue and the close proximity of surgeries.

This new way of implanting a HeartMate 3 is important because almost half the recipients who receive heart transplants, receive this LVADs. The HeartMate 3 According to St. Judes, 77% of patients who receive HeartMate3 improved overall health and 83% of patients increased their average 6-minute walk distance. This means this device is an extremely important tool for prolonging the lives of heart transplant recipients. 

This tool is used as a bridge to a heart transplant
Smith,T. (2017). UCHealth first aims to reduce pain at the pump. UCHealth. 
https://www.uchealth.org/today/2017/10/25/uchealth-first-aims-to-reduce-pain-at-the-pump/

 St. Jude Medical. (2015, September). HeartMate 3 Patient Handbook. Document 10002833.B https://www.sjmglobal.com/patients/heart-failure/our-solutions/left-ventricle-assist-device/heartmate-3?halert=show&clset=92f57278-460e-4300-b7fe-89e52a04194f%3acadddb93-fcc4-47f2-8ceb-fd88f01ca17f

Friday, December 1, 2017

Suicide prevention with Artificial Intelligence

This week, Facebook recently came out and said that they are screening Facebook profiles for videos, status updates, and live streams to identify suicidal behavior. Facebook uses artificial intelligence to scan all posts by all users and flag key phrases and comments such as “Are you okay?” and “Can I help?”. The program then flags these users to be reviewed by a team that Facebook has put together. If the team deems that the situation is serious enough, they will reach out to first responders to provide immediate relief for the individual. If the team deems that there is moderate concern for suicidal tendencies, they will reach out via Facebook messenger with links to the Crisis Text Line, National Eating Disorder Association, and National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. The artificial intelligence reviews every post and then ranks what it deems is most serious to be reviewed by the team Facebook has put together. Strictly from this AI and then team-reviewed cases, there have been wellness checks by 100 different Facebook users in the past month.

The way that Facebook is screening these posts definitely brings up some ethical concerns. The first and most obvious is the policing of the user’s day to day life that they broadcast online. They are using each user’s information to compile them and then rate them on a list of severe mental health. Following this, strangers will review your profile and then reach out strictly based upon that to provide help. Even though they are doing it for a good cause like suicide prevention, this is still a large corporation going through all of your information to determine if they should step in. As a company they are taking it upon themselves to help combat mental health. Which begins a slippery slope in which they begin to start to interfere in more and more of your privacy and personal lives. To play devil’s advocate however, they are broadcasting this in a very public setting and the artificial intelligence is searching for comments made by other people. So in that way, it is just another person reaching out to help the person who seems to be in need. It is an interesting new development that could potentially spark more and more AI searching for different things. 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/27/technology/facebook-ai-suicide-prevention/index.html