Letter: Baby `experiments'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The questions that need to be asked about the North Staffordshire study are very simple:
Did those planning the study reasonably believe that the experimental treatment was at least as good as or better than conventional treatment?
Was consent obtained from the parents?
Was that consent truly informed consent?
Did those babies who received the experimental treatment do worse than those who received conventional therapy?
If so, was it possible to discern the outcome of the study before the study was completed so that if necessary it could be terminated early?
If these questions cannot be properly answered then those responsible for the study deserve to be pilloried. Until that time, perhaps The Independent should devote itself to finding out the facts rather than stigmatising an entire profession. We are not the only trade which needs to avoid the sin of arrogance.
Dr DAVID THOMAS
Cardiff
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments