Roberto Cataldi¹
Health deception for financial gain is as old as deception itself. Every day we learn through the media of new forms of fraud that cover practically all areas of social life, since it is not only regarding scientific and medical fraud.
Hwang Woo-suk, a Korean researcher, led the scientific community to believe that he had achieved the first cloning of stem cells of human origin. the prestigious magazine Science published his work. In his country he was considered a “national hero”. This discovery opened a new door to the treatment of Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.
The deception lasted for years and the government of his country gave him millions of dollars to continue his research and placed him at the head of the world’s first stem cell bank. In 2005 his colleagues accused him of having used fake stem cells for his research. The government appointed a scientific investigative committee that found procedural flaws, simulated tests and false data. And three independent laboratories confirmed that most of the genetic material in the clones did not match the donor’s DNA.
Woo-suk was expelled from Seoul University and had his lab closed. He was sentenced to two years in prison and he was to spend three years under surveillance by the authorities. But the court took into account his authority in animal cloning and that the money was used for research-related matters. Woo-suk ended up admitting to having falsified some data and continued to work at a local lab always in the field of cloning.
The biggest recent fraud is that of Elizabeth Holmesa very smart young woman, a born saleswoman, without academic degrees, who in 2003 at just nineteen years of age founded a startup medical diagnosis, Theranos. From a drop of blood that the patient himself might take at home with the prick of a finger, diagnoses would emerge through a software.
Holmes had the ability to mislead investors, employees, the board of directors and the media who came to consecrate this version of Sillicon Valley like a rising star. The company was valued at nine billion dollars and avoided offering further details because it was hiding behind industrial secrecy, but the truth is that its devices were useless. Last month a jury found her guilty of fraudulent deception of investors and the judge’s sentence was awaited.
A couple of years ago the media reported several thefts of medical equipment in public hospitals in the Province of Buenos Aires, which the justice labeled as “theft.” This motivated him to make a note and publish it. They are expensive devices that end up in the “black market of medicine”, and that are usually bought by doctors, who if they do not know the origin, at least they intuit it, because it is used material and at an opportunity price. An equipment that is vital to save many lives and whose replacement is not automatic.
The law tries to make clear the difference between theft, robbery and looting or robbery. The origin of the concept of theft refers us to Roman Law and today it is reflected in the penal codes of the different countries. I understand that “qualified theft” would be the one that generates the greatest interpretive confusion, but this is an issue for legal scholars and those who must apply the law, and I am a simple ordinary citizen. I just want to underline my concern, because in an area as sensitive as health and given the serious consequences, I ask myself: can we classify the event as a simple theft?
Without falling into a corporate defense since in all professions there are those who do not comply with normative ethics, it would give the impression that malpractice would fall only in the medical area, and there is no lack of those who claim responsibility for the result, claiming almost draconian penalties. , such as those of King Hammurabi’s Code, ignoring that doctors only have a responsibility of means.
A health minister, referring to vaccination, said, not without arrogance, that there are many things that an ordinary doctor does not know, but that the authorities do know… I believe that in this matter, as in so many others, no one has a monopoly on knowledge. I am a 73-year-old ordinary doctor, with 49 years of profession dedicated to assisting patients and forming groups of doctors (several of them practicing in different countries) and, I can affirm that ordinary doctors usually have a lot of experience in the field, not desk practice, hence the scientific meetings where we exchange information, opinions and debate for the benefit of the patient.
With COVID-19, there are many doubts that have not been dispelled, therefore it is natural that colleagues with vast experience cautiously await internationally validated data. The scientific field is not that of due obedience, nor that of beliefs, and the primary task is to protect the patient.
As for the “macro” data, it is important to remember that this prefix derived from the Greek, both in medicine and in economics or in any other activity, indicates the sum of the different experiences that allow obtaining a large amount of data. But it is clear that the one who collects the information they send lacks the experiences that patient care provides, that is why he does not have experience in the field, something that many overlook, starting with the authorities.
The Medical Association of Peru has just questioned the recently appointed Minister of Health, not only because he would lack the merits to perform that function, but also for promoting a “medicinal water” on social networks that would delay aging and would not have scientific endorsements, the which is sold in small bottles for $68. And of course, how people are not going to mistrust the institutions and their authorities.
Donald Trump Y Jair Bolsonaroleading their respective countries and in the midst of the most difficult stage of the pandemic, recommended taking hydroxychloroquine to combat the coronavirus, without taking into account the scant scientific evidence of this drug as an antiviral and once once more revealing the recklessness that the characterizes.
With the pandemic and the restrictions, “essential workers” came into existence, who are more exposed to risk and receive lower wages, which would lead one to think that their contribution to the common good does not deserve more attention. With the health personnel at the beginning of the quarantine there was applause, and following two years of strenuous, exhausting work, plus infections and deaths, questions arise and even physical aggressions arise due to situations that do not always depend on the doctor.
In short, I think that many assistance problems would be solved, publicly and privately, with well-trained personnel and decent working conditions, in accordance with responsibility and risk. But as on so many other occasions I ask myself: Who cares for those who care?
- Roberto Miguel Cataldi Amatriain He is a doctor by profession and an essayist cultivating humanities, for whose development he created the Cataldi Amatriain International Foundation (FICA) together with his family.
