What do you think?
Rate this book
The Unfortunate Experiment the Full Story Behind the Inquiry Into Cervical Cancer Treatment
Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
1 person is currently reading
44 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 8, 2020
In the 1960s, at Auckland's National Women's Hospital, Professor Herb Green had a theory. A powerful force in the Obstetrics and Gynaecological Department, Green felt that carcinoma in situ (CIS) did not, in itself, mean later progress to invasive cervical cancer. He proposed to simply monitor the progression of CIS rather than treat it by surgery, possibly influenced by his belief that It was her 'heritage' to keep her uterus, Green told one woman.
Green was wrong, horribly horribly wrong. His views were heretical and unsupported in the international medical community.
'They are totally up a gum tree at National Women's. It's like belonging to a political party'.
His lack of treatment cost over a dozen women their lives and adversely affected hundreds more.
While the catalyst for this disaster were the actions of one doctor, the system allowed him to operate with only limited challenge within the medical community, and virtually none outside it. Finally, in 1984, a group of doctors published a paper drawing attention to the unnervingly high death rates under Green's "unfortunate experiment." This paper triggered the investigation that led to an article in the Metro magazine in 1986, the Cartwright Inquiry and this book. Explicitly intended to give the feminist perspective, it is sobering reading.
'You'll do as you're told,' he thundered, and that was that.
'The patient's permission is not specifically sought as it is believed that this is implicit in their attendance at a teaching hospital.'
Without going into detail, the efforts of Coney, her colleague Phillida Bunkle and the Cartwright Inquiry revealed a disinterest in concepts of patient welfare and informed consent. A pamphlet on patient rights was kept in a closet rather than distributed. Aside from Green's experimentation, women were not given the opportunity to elect between different treatments of radiotherapy or surgery, with the decision being made by doctors tossing a coin. The high proportion of Maori and Pacific Island women using National Women's did not apparently merit a trained interpreter. Some of the other actions taken on uninformed and vulnerable parties are genuinely shocking and need to read in the book. They make one's blood boil.
The remarks constantly feed back to us were that it was 'a witchhunt' and a 'feminist plot'.
Yet the doctors, perhaps as any profession instinctively would, closed ranks and disciplined those that spoke up at the Cartwright Inquiry. Clinician freedom to choose the form of treatment without oversight or review overrode consumer protection. Nurses were feed misleading information about the Inquiry, the reader being left to infer that this was intended to suppress evidence.
By what right do these men play Russian roulette with our lives?
This book clearly explains the issues from a medical and a social perspective. The arguments are well made and backed up with reference to casenotes and records from the Cartwtight Inquiry. The only point I disagree with her is as to the value of New Zealand's 'no fault' Accident Compensation scheme. I take her point that it may encourage risky behaviour from corporations and doctors, but I would need to see more empirical evidence.
It was actually a problem of medical power.
I believe that the matters contained within should be taught more widely in the New Zealand school curriculum. It is an important component of our history. Unfortunately the author was, in 1988, pessimistic about whether the revelations actually meant that a corner was turned. We are reliant on the efforts of people such as Coney and Bunkle to inform and potentially safeguard us from those who have authority, whether by virtue of their position or their expertise.
Green was wrong, horribly horribly wrong. His views were heretical and unsupported in the international medical community.
'They are totally up a gum tree at National Women's. It's like belonging to a political party'.
His lack of treatment cost over a dozen women their lives and adversely affected hundreds more.
While the catalyst for this disaster were the actions of one doctor, the system allowed him to operate with only limited challenge within the medical community, and virtually none outside it. Finally, in 1984, a group of doctors published a paper drawing attention to the unnervingly high death rates under Green's "unfortunate experiment." This paper triggered the investigation that led to an article in the Metro magazine in 1986, the Cartwright Inquiry and this book. Explicitly intended to give the feminist perspective, it is sobering reading.
'You'll do as you're told,' he thundered, and that was that.
'The patient's permission is not specifically sought as it is believed that this is implicit in their attendance at a teaching hospital.'
Without going into detail, the efforts of Coney, her colleague Phillida Bunkle and the Cartwright Inquiry revealed a disinterest in concepts of patient welfare and informed consent. A pamphlet on patient rights was kept in a closet rather than distributed. Aside from Green's experimentation, women were not given the opportunity to elect between different treatments of radiotherapy or surgery, with the decision being made by doctors tossing a coin. The high proportion of Maori and Pacific Island women using National Women's did not apparently merit a trained interpreter. Some of the other actions taken on uninformed and vulnerable parties are genuinely shocking and need to read in the book. They make one's blood boil.
The remarks constantly feed back to us were that it was 'a witchhunt' and a 'feminist plot'.
Yet the doctors, perhaps as any profession instinctively would, closed ranks and disciplined those that spoke up at the Cartwright Inquiry. Clinician freedom to choose the form of treatment without oversight or review overrode consumer protection. Nurses were feed misleading information about the Inquiry, the reader being left to infer that this was intended to suppress evidence.
By what right do these men play Russian roulette with our lives?
This book clearly explains the issues from a medical and a social perspective. The arguments are well made and backed up with reference to casenotes and records from the Cartwtight Inquiry. The only point I disagree with her is as to the value of New Zealand's 'no fault' Accident Compensation scheme. I take her point that it may encourage risky behaviour from corporations and doctors, but I would need to see more empirical evidence.
It was actually a problem of medical power.
I believe that the matters contained within should be taught more widely in the New Zealand school curriculum. It is an important component of our history. Unfortunately the author was, in 1988, pessimistic about whether the revelations actually meant that a corner was turned. We are reliant on the efforts of people such as Coney and Bunkle to inform and potentially safeguard us from those who have authority, whether by virtue of their position or their expertise.
Displaying 1 of 1 review