What’s the difference between a quack and a pioneer? And how do we allow the next William Harvey or Edward Jenner to flourish, whilst protecting the public?
These are the questions at the heart of the Medical Innovations Bill, the basis of which is the belief that true innovation is being stifled by the fear doctors have of being sued, and that legislation is required to remove this barrier.
I found myself trying to answer these questions in the consulting room the other day when a patient asked me directly if she could have a syndrome I had never heard of before. She has a multitude of symptoms that I have been unable to explain, and her internet search had led her to the syndrome as a possible explanation for her situation. She was kind enough to give me time to do my own research, and we agreed to meet again to discuss it.
The syndrome in question (which I won’t name for fear of saying anything that could be misconstrued as libel) was unorthodox, but not implausible. It suggested that there could be a hormonal imbalance at tissue-level which was not reflected in abnormal blood tests, and high-level hormone supplementation was required.
But tissue-level biochemistry is still poorly understood. If bacteria in your gut can cause ulcers and crystals in your ear lead to vertigo, then I don’t see why some hereto unknown enzyme problem couldn’t lead to a hormone imbalance – unlikely, but not impossible.
Here, however, is where the theory started to break down into quackery: the proponent of the syndrome did not engage in the process of scientific enquiry, but named the condition after himself, set up a lucrative clinic offering untested (potentially harmful) therapy to patients outside the bounds of a clinical trial, and continues to offer such treatment despite being disciplined by his professional body.
When I made my conclusions about my patient’s diagnosis, explaining the background, thankfully she agreed with me.
So I am left with a simple distinction between true innovators and quacks. The former will be motivated by a desire to discover truth through rigorous scientific enquiry and external peer scrutiny, while the latter will come up with plausible, attractive theories and hurry on with treatments without stopping to examine the effects in an unbiased way
This is why we do not need Saatchi’s Bill, and we should strongly oppose it. A true innovator will not want to implement the Bill, while a maverick doctor may seek to exploit it. Their motivations for doing so may be benign – a desire to offer hope to the patient in front of them, perhaps, or an inability to admit the truth that really nothing more can be done – but the outcome will be the same.
The Bill is meant to encourage innovation where there is a dearth of clinical trials, but in such circumstances a true innovator will not complain about the lack of trials, they will create one.
The Bill seeks to provide safeguards so that proposed treatments are brought before fellow clinicians before being used. A true innovator knows the value of proper scrutiny as afforded by an ethics committee.
The Bill seeks to encourage treatments for patients who have no time to wait for clinical trials, but a true innovator will see the long line of future patients, and not allow decisions to be dominated by the suffering of those immediately before them.
Maybe our Health Secretary and Lord Saatchi should talk to someone like Barry Marshall, who jointly won the 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology with Robin Warren for establishing the link between H pylori and peptic ulcer disease, and was so obsessed with finding the truth that he infected himself with the bacterium to study its effects – now that was true innovation. I wonder what he would think about the Bill?