Are There Any Moral or Ethical Issues With Parkinson’s Disease?

One Comment

1. Mags says:

   April 19, 2011 at 4:16 am

   There is always going to be someone who feels that there is a moral or ethical issue with anything. And from one person’s viewpoint that makes sense. As to you specific question, there are moral issues with the way people treat PWPs (people with Parkinson’s) and there are certainly moral and ethical positions about th PD research.

   Obviously there are issues about eSCR (Embryonic Stem Cell Research) And these objections are actually shared by people within the Parkinson’s Disease community as they hope for a cure. They feel that the use of the embryonic stem cells although predominantly obtained from fertility clinics which are about to discard (throw away – dispose of – trash) these unwanted/unused stem cells because of age/viability issues with full upfront disclosure is still the taking of a life despite the fact that disposal will end that potential completely whereas the use of these stem cells in research might actually result in the saving of not just one life but possibly millions.

   There are other issues as well. There is objection to the animal research which must be done in a complicated disease such as PD. There is only so much that can be done with yeast. PETA has some valid points and certainly no one is going to die if they can’t wear a fur coat. That’s vanity and not survival. I think that sometimes we really do need to draw a line. And sometimes it needs to be on the side of the animal.
   http://www.petasearch.org/texis/search/context.html?query=experiments&pr=UK+sites&prox=page&rorder=1000&rprox=1000&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&rdepth=0&sufs=0&order=r&cq=&cmd=context&id=49b739b0d

   I admit that I cringe when I think about the animals in some studies but then I remember the photos I have seen of people in the end stages of PD or the death of people I once knew who had juvenile diabetes and various cancers. I think of all of the young people who have little hope of living to my age with Muscular Dystrophy…

   There are always those fringe people who claim that people who contract chronic incurable diseases deserve what they got. But Juvenile Parkinson’s can begin at 2 years of age. What did a toddler do to deserve that fate?

   Every time we do anything there can be equal and opposite moral and ethical issues. Simply expending the energy needed to use this PC and monitor to respond to your questions raises issues about the use of electricity. Even a laptop needs charging sometimes. And what about the manufacture of those batteries?

   I think the real ethical and moral issues are that people-including employers who are not PWP (people with Parkinson’s) treat PWPs fairly. That they not make fun or them because they have tremors and walk oddly. They need to remember that inside those distressed bodies are the minds and souls of individuals who might just as easily be them.

   I think that people who have a disease should not be labeled as the disease nor should they be fired because they have the disease. I believe that employers need to recognize loyal employees and work with them to accommodate the employee within reasonable job descriptions.
   http://www.discriminationattorney.com/lawyer-attorney-1288974.html

   I think there has been a moral and ethical issue with the Dept of Veterans Affairs who didn’t acknowledge for decades the damage done to the bodies of their soldiers, their own constituency, by agent orange. That they denied people disability compensation to these people who were exposed to this dioxin and also malathion when the two were combined (known triggers for PD by the way) is immoral and a national disgrace. That there is a huge list of horrible conditions which were sometimes treated sometimes ignored by VA is something that will be corrected in the next few years…easier to do since so many have died of these conditions now. Va set up care centers within this century – not the last one when these conditions were caused.
   http://www.parkinsons.va.gov/Consortium/index.asp

   I say hats off to the State of Indiana which was the first state to recognize in a vote just last week that emergency responders could be exposed to materials which are known to trigger Parkinson’s disease. By that vote for HB 376 Indiana recognized the right to disability compensation for Firefighters, EMS workers and Police officers who might be exposed in the line of duty. Now that was an ethical decision which brings a smile to the collective face of PD.
   http://parkinsonsfocustoday.blogspot.com/2009/05/parkinsons-disease-as-line-of-duty.html

   I also feel that there is a moral and ethical responsibility on the part of the medical profession to acquire all the knowledge possible about diseases and begin early treatment. With PD, the patient must be started on a course of treatment immediately to prevent further neurodegeneration. While the diagnosis is not easy, listening and thinking are the best tools at this point. New diagnostics including blood tests are in the pipeline.

   I also think that there is a responsibility of the patient to be knowledgeable and proactive in his/her care so that they can insist upon a courses of therapy and medication which will stay the progression of the disease.

   Addendum:
   I am wondering if there aren’t ethical issues with some exposures. For example the exposure of Vietnam Vets to Agent Orange and Malathion: did the manufactures know? When did the military really know about the health risk of exposure? I am not talking about the aftercare and the identification of a disability but the moral and ethical issues involved in knowing that there is a serious potential physical-health danger to soldiers (and innocent civilians) and still proceding with the application. Where does the line need to be drawn and when?

   Emergency responders may have no choice about exposure but there needs to be recognition of the risks and Fire Departments, EMS and Police departments have a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure that all personnel have the proper protection (breathing masks – respirators) and the continued time frame mandate for their use.

   There is a moral responsibility of an employer to protect the safety of an employee. And that holds true for disease risks as well.