client informed consent proven medical care definition

[malernee]

01-06-06 at 8:32a:
client informed consent proven medical care definition

Medical treatments for pets come in many shapes and sizes. There are "home remedies" shared among families and friends. There are prescription medicines, available only from a pharmacist, and only when ordered by a veterinarian. There are over-the-counter drugs that you can buy--almost anywhere--without a vet's order. Of growing interest and attention in recent years are so-called alternative treatments, not yet approved for sale because they are still undergoing scientific research to see if they really are safe and effective. And, of course, there are those "miracle" products sold through "back-of-the-magazine" ads and TV infomercials.

How can you tell which of these may really help treat your pet, and which will only make you worse off--financially or your pet worse off physically, or both?

Many advocates of unproven treatments and cures contend that people have the right to try whatever may offer them hope, even if others believe the remedy is worthless. This argument is especially compelling for people with pets who for example have a cat with feline AIDS or other life-threatening diseases with no known cure.

"Promotion of unproven medical care in the market place" is included in the definition of quackery by many health care providers.
see
http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewt ... ?p=735#735

To avoid semantic problems, quackery could be broadly defined as "anything involving over promotion in the field of health." Unproven methods are not necessarily quackery. Those consistent with established scientific concepts may be considered experimental. Legitimate researchers and practitioners do not promote unproven procedures in the marketplace but engage in responsible, properly-designed studies. Quackery is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Medical care can be useful some times for some purposes but worthless and a waste of time and money when repeated or given at the wrong time.
see
http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=205

Clinical Trials

Before gaining Food and Drug Administration marketing approval, new drugs, human biologics, and medical devices must be proven safe and effective by controlled clinical trials. Old medical care may be grand fathered in by the FDA. Just because the FDA allows medical care to be sold does not mean its proven medical care. Proven care requires at least one randomized trial. The FDA wants to have at least two randomized controlled trials but work around the FDA government regulations often does occur.
see
http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewt ... homeopathy

Sad to say our best consumer protection group the FDA does not even approve biological's for pets, the USDA does. The USDA often only requires vaccines be shown to have an effect in a small trial. Many USDA approved pet vaccines do not even work. Corona vaccine in dogs is a good example. The vaccine makers cannot even produce clinical symptoms in adult dogs with corona virus challenge to test the vaccine.
see
http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewt ... ght=corona

In a clinical trial, results observed in patients getting the treatment are compared with the results in similar patients receiving a different treatment or placebo (inactive) treatment. Preferably, neither client nor researchers know who is receiving the therapy under study.

To the FDA, it doesn't matter whether the product or treatment is labeled alternative or falls under the auspices of mainstream American medical practice. (Mainstream American medicine essentially includes the practices and products the majority of medical doctors in this country follow and use.) It should meet the agency's safety and effectiveness criteria before being allowed on the market.

In addition, just because something is undergoing a clinical trial doesn't mean it works or FDA considers it to be a proven therapy, says Donald Pohl, of FDA's Office of AIDS and Special Health Issues. "You can't jump to that conclusion," he says. A trial can fail to prove that the product is effective, he explains. And that's not just true for alternative products. Even when the major drug companies sponsor clinical trials for mainstream products, only a small fraction are proven safe and effective.

If an herb is being marketed as a medicine, then it should
be regulated like any other drug. This includes convincing the FTC to
acknowledge that the phrase "it's natural, so it's safe" is false
advertising, and printing warning labels on herbal "supplements."

The easiest way to stop herb type unproven medical care is to repeal the DSHEA act of 1994, and allow the FDA to do
what it was doing before that.

art malernee dvm