Thalidomide

As many of you will know Thalidomide, which was prescribed from 1957 to 1961, caused phocomelia (Greek for seal limbs). At first it was thought to be a wonderful drug, being sold to treat diseases such as: coughs, colds, migraines, as a sedative in sleeping pills and its fall to treat morning sickness. Although this wide range of uses should have caused concern about it potency and its mode of action. to the right is the structural display of Thalidomide.

How did it slip through the net? Could it happen again? Firstly, this occurred by the lack of rigorous tests on numerous volunteers, studying both long and short term effects/complications. But more worryingly there was virtually no testing on pregnant animals. Secondly, no it is very unlikely, due to new stricter regulation being introduced such as bigger clinical trials which encompass mandatory testing on pregnant animals. usually rabbits. Further more, there were some anomalies with the data when it was originally collected such as the possibility of neuropathy (nerve problems) would must, more than likely, be picked up today.

The abnormalities are permanent and life changing. In some cases they have become stigmatised and even abused. But many of these people have have adapted to use their 'limbs' successfully becoming musicians, writers and artists. Even with the most severe cases causing hands to be at the shoulders and feet almost to the hip. Below is a picture of a Thalidomide baby:

Against much controversy some drug companies and scientists have believed that such a potent drug must have a safe, usefully role in treating or reducing the symptoms of diseases. Initially, in the late 1990's, it was used to treat leprosy . But was out-competed by more effective drugs. It has now being linked with multiple myeloma - which is the cancer of plasma cells. Unregulated, vast volumes of antibodies are produced which can cause illness in numerous ways: reducing the red blood cell count, making the blood thicker, blocking kidney tubules and by making the bones more fragile, if the cancer spreads. Thalidomide has being shown to be effective when used in conjunction with traditional chemotherapy treatments. This is important as multiple myeloma is quite common - 1 in 170 people suffer at some point in their live. Meaning, especially as survival rates are low (survival beyond 5 years at only 30%), an effective treatment could benefit the masses.

Another link to cancer: processed meat

Researchers in Sweden have found such a link. It is supposed to increase the chances of pancreatic cancer by 19%. Although the findings should be viewed with caution as this correlation has not been proven as causal. Sara Hiom (cancer research's information director) voiced the same opinion stating: "The jury is still out as to whether meat is a definite risk factor for pancreatic cancer and more large studies are needed to confirm this."The fact remains that smoking still increases the chances of developing pancreatic cancer more than processed meat.

Processed meat had also been proven to link to bowel cancer, leading to a 70g per day limit on meat- set by the department of health. Although as we all know different people require different amounts of protein and the lack of protein in a top athlete would be more detrimental than the consequences of consuming too much processed meat.

I am sceptical of the results for the reasons stated above. But I also wonder if the implications are true as it stated the consumption of a extra sausage per day (50g) lead to the data collected. This sort of diet is also likely to lead to obesity, coronary heart disease meaning the results obtained could be as a result of one of those two factors.

Euthanasia

The euthanasia debate can be very hostile, with all participants usually being very polar in their thoughts and uncompromising. The recent words from experts saying their is a "strong case" for allowing assisted suicide had refuelled a already raging debate. The main argument for is: it is peoples own choice which they should, in a democratic state, be able to make. In addition that people should be allowed to die in dignity rather than suffer in life. Although those such Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of Care Not Killing states the investigation was "biased" and "seriously flawed." Saunders may have a point as the investigation was payed for by promoters of chance to legalise assisted suicide.

He also states how the "BMA believes the majority of doctors do not want assisted suicide legalised." This seems logically as people begin a career in medicine to try to save lives not end them. Members of the group further believe that the proposed/recommended criteria: if a person was over 18, terminally ill and judged as having less than 12 months to live, making a voluntary choice and not impaired mentally were unlikely to remain and that a we may be heading down a slippery slope. In addition, numerous anecdotes stating how patients, independently assessed by more than 1 Doctor, concluded a patient had only a few months to live and then lived for years after. Putting doubt to the integrity of the criteria.

Even with all this evidence i still, personally, believe people should retain the ability to terminate their own life if they so wish. As who are we to control the life of someone who no longer wishes to live it. They would have thought very long and hard about the consequences and critically appraised their situation, quality of life and concluded that they no longer wanted to live in humiliation but rather die in dignity. If we can provide a dignified death we should. It may even be the most considerate thing to do.