Spring 2011 Issue

Dr. Keith Flaherty, M.D. is an oncologist at Massachusetts General in Boston, MA, and is a leader in the development of a new wave of cancer treatment drugs known as targeted therapy. He has been involved in clinical trials for breakthrough cancer treatment drugs for nearly ten years and has published over 15 papers that investigate the molecular mechanics of cancer development and proliferation. The New York Times ran a six-part series from February 2010-January 2011 highlighting targeted therapies and Dr. Flaherty’s involvement in their clinical trials and the treatment of patients.

Eriene-Heidi Sidhom argues that doctors should have the right to refuse treatment to unvaccinated children, as they put vaccinated children at risk. Virginia Saurman counters that ultimately parents have the right to care for their child’s health as they see fit.

The release of the first anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs in 1986 for the treatment of HIV-1 infection signaled an important point in the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic. More recently, mounting evidence has suggested that the use of ARV drugs as prophylactics could prove effective in preventing HIV infection in high-risk populations. Results from two recent studies, the iPrEx and CAPRISA trials, provided evidence for the effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), although a number of questions and concerns remain that must be addressed before the scientific community considers PrEP as a preventative strategy at the population level.

The practice of commercial surrogacy in India has developed into a profitable industry that operates within the free market. The surrogate mothers are generally impoverished, uneducated women from Indian villages, who engage in surrogacy for a variety of reasons. Because of the few government regulations on the surrogacy industry, the interests of the intended parents, the surrogacy clinics, and the brokers and agencies tend to be served before the interests of the surrogates themselves. An analysis of the practice through the lens of medical ethics examines if commercial surrogacy in India violates the four prima facie principles of non-malfeasance, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. Upon this analysis, recommendations can be made as to how and if the commercial surrogacy in India should be changed or regulated in the future.