(no subject)
Feb. 27th, 2014 06:13 pmI am generally somewhat leery of academic research on injection drug users (I just don’t think that the Institutional Review Boards take into account the level of secrecy and stigma associated with illegal drug use, and the way that doctors can use substandard treatment to punish IDUs) but I also think that lack of education of health care providers is a huge problem when it comes to treatment of drug users. (Still remember being barraged by questions by med students when I was in the ER after an OD — in lieu of either medical treatment or being allowed to go home — and their generally abysmal level of knowledge.)
I have a lot of random thoughts on research on IDUs, but no formal training in bioethics (except a very cursory required course in graduate school). In general, being part of an underrepresented group and dealing with clinical trials or human research is a real catch 22. It’s bad to not have your specific health concerns addressed by medical science, and it’s bad to be experimented on when you are part of a group with specific issues related to consent and privacy.
Here are a few, totally anecdotal things that have bugged me over the years:
-the way doctors talk about their drug using patients and scientists talk about research participants (especially in studies related to HIV and HCV) and assume that no one in the room would identify with the people they’re talking about
-the use of “pilot studies” for things like needle exchange that are already well proven, as a way to delay full implementation
-terrible survey instruments with choices/questions that make no sense to the participant, with no way to give a personal answer, and which you just know are giving bad data (I’ve been on both sides of this one, first as a needle exchange participant and later as a volunteer)
-supposedly anonymized participant IDs that are not really anonymous (usually to make them easier to remember) Also, the larger problem of only providing syringes to authorized participants, but that is usually a legal problem, outside the agency’s control.
-the wound care clinic at San Francisco General Hospital which in the 90s was notorious for treating abscesses in the most scarring/painful ways, which was seen as punishment by many patients. Supposedly the clinic totally changed their training in the early aughts, and as a needle exchange volunteer, I told people it was much better now, even though I didn’t have any personal experience with it. Which I still feel bad about.
-use of ignorant and poorly trained medical students in free clinics (providing training for students and crappy care for patients) Also the larger issue of trying to have free clinics deal with chronic health conditions when we know how ineffective that is, but, again, that is an issues that is much larger than any given agency. Though the churn of services caused by various pilot studies or small projects with short-lived funding can really add to the problem.
On the other hand, I was a participant and the Women’s Interagency HIV Study for ten years, and they really seemed to do everything right. They seemed really kind and professional (and their questionnaires seemed pretty good), and they helped me out getting a HCV test when I didn’t want to go to student health (where my thesis adviser’s wife worked).