I read it, so I understand "both" sides of the argument now, and yeah, I guess good research is needed to determine the best way to treat patients...

Still, if I ever end up on the ER, I'd like to be sure they give the treatment they believe to be best, not the one that is highest up on their randomized list.

It might be fun for gambling addicts though. :P

I speak from experience on this one. I am still alive today because of a treatment that was classified as experimental, and only 2 hospitals in the country had permission to conduct the study. A child in my neighborhood had just died from an iron overdose. The doctor involved decided to find out what to do, if he ever saw this again. When my folks brought me in, he knew what symptoms to look for and what preparations to make. I was on a plane within an hour on my way to Children's hospital. The choice was "admit him to the study" or "Sit here and watch him die a painful lingering death." Do you think my parents would have had more than 1 choice? Would it have been an informed choice?

New treatments have to, at some point, be used in the field. With proper oversite, controls and preliminary studies, these kinds of experiments are crucial.

This is not a case of some "Mad Scientist" type experimenting on helpless people, or Nazi-like victimization in the name of "scientific experiments". This is legitimate research on treatments that have already been through lower tests. At the point these treatments have reached you have 3 options:
1. Approve them, in which case this isn't "experimental",
2. Do these tests, and prove the treatment works in real life situations, or
3. Deny them and don't allow them to be used (depriving future patients from possible life-saving treatment).

To those that say "You risk their lives without their consent" I would counter "You try anything possible to save their lives, even though consent isn't possible."

From a liability standpoint, there is a risk that the facility may be sued for trying a therapy and a patient dies. The argument is "you didn't do what the normal procedure was, so you must have killed him." I could just as easily see the lawsuit that says "You knew there was something else that might work, and you didn't use it, so you must have killed him."

Seems they are working for due-dilligence by getting a community board to review the research first. This is a step in the correct direction.

Agreed 100%!

The only part that concerns me that I didn't see addressed (sorry if I missed it) is whether or not they will disclose to the patient/family after the fact if a new procedure was indeed tested at the time. Even if their liability is limited regardless of the outcome, the patient and their family have a right to know what was done.

Kevin

I agree that full disclosure should be required. Not being able to get consent up front shouldn't lift the burden of disclosure when the situation settles.

I also think that they should be held liable for the results, just as they would be if they "followed standard procedure". Many factors impact liability, and those things can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. I just don't see them being AUTOMATICALLY at fault because they used an approved experimental procedure. However, (to pick a silly example to show my point) if they used an experimental procedure for cardiac arrest, but I was really suffering severe indigestion, I would think they would have a severe liability. The standard liability applies: Was the diagnosis reasonable with the information available, did they do everything that could be reasonably expected to ensure their information was complete, was the treatment appropriate to the condition, etc.

Some good points Steel... I don't have the first hand experience that you have so I cannot argue the issue.

I'm just a bit leary about an "opt out" medical experimentation plan.