There is No mechanism for getting the chemical (dichloroacetate, DCA) past the billion-dollar barrier of FDA approval. (The FDA actually only approved 17 drugs last year, and the drug industry spent 40 billion dollars on Research & Developement).

The FDA will Not Allow people in the Orderly and Profitable Process of agonizing death by incurable cancers to try Non-approved drugs or treatments.

No drug company, no matter how large, can afford to spend a billion dollars and 19 years getting a nonpatentable treatment through the bureaucratic minefield.

There is No FDA-approved way to get there from Here!

The American Cancer Society does not recognize, and in fact denegrates and even reviles,(politely, of course), every single treatment for cancer except chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

The American Cancer Society is heavily involved with "the race for the cure" and other fruitless, public-bilking efforts to take money from the public that gets plowed into keeping the American Cancer Society going, with hefty salaries for its employees, and into searching for more damaging, injurious "cures" such as chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

Should we support human experimentation, or to ban it?

There is a wealth of publications on this issue which testifies to the Bewilderment. Medical Ethics are "the values and guidelines that should govern decisions in medicine"

Credits: The Cancer Journal - Volume 8, Number 5 (September-October 1995)
Editorial:
http://www.what-is-cancer.com/papers/MedicalEthics.html

Human Experimentation - Nevertheless, human experimentation is essential for good medical treatment.
Every drug has its side-effects, and since treatment outcome is unknown, it is by nature experimental.
If the physician encounters a New drug that seems to helpful to his patient, he ought to test it, because he has sworn that, "I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone"

In closing- "Still, Judgment may vary, and even the best physician may be Wrong."

Doctors and Patients on our own! Ethics - We Decide!

All forms of ethically sound experimental treatment and medical research must rest soundly on the idea of informed consent. However, medicine does not exist in a cultural vacuum. Both medical professionals and patents are affected by the culture they live in. With the recent popularity of internet medical information, we find complex ethical and moral issues presented in forums, blogs and websites. Individual situations are often much more perplexing, than what is displayed. By addressing these issues in popular culture, we are encouraged to closely examine complicated issues of medical ethics.

Informed consent is defined by Tom L. Beauchamp, Senior Research Scholar at Georgetown University ’s Kennedy Institute of Ethics, as full understanding of medical procedures and effects as established through a doctor-patient relationship. Surprisingly, few doctors surveyed considered informed consent to be anything more than a signature on a document. Of these few, only an even smaller percent responded that it involved a conscious choice concerning the direction of their treatment (Beauchamp 192). In theory, it may be ethically sound to view treatment as an ongoing discussion but in practice it is often a signature on a form. Given the stresses placed upon medical professionals by the current medical system, it seems only fair to acknowledge that most patients will receive a form to sign as opposed to a long conversation. Even with current restraints, it seems only just to present patients with a description of their treatment, especially in the case of a potentially dangerous experimental treatment.

Experimental treatment and medical research must rest securely on informed consent if they are to be considered ethically sound. As with other ethical dilemmas, the language involved is essential to the legislation and practice of experimental treatment or research. As discussed by A. M. Capron, University of Southern California, key terms such as research and therapy; therapeutic and non-therapeutic; and benefit, while commonly used, are host to subtle nuances that make their definitions unclear. It is in the definition of these terms that ethical reasoning is discovered (Capron 135).

Experimental treatment is considered to be a case by case study involving a doctor/patient relationship. It is not required to be peer reviewed or overseen by a governing body. Within this treatment, however, physicians are still held to the traditional Hippocratic injunction to do no harm. Treatment must be intended to improve the situation of a patient. Any experimental treatment that is intended to harm the patient or to satisfy a doctor’s curiosity regarding a disease is a clear violation of medical ethics. Conversely, research detonates an activity designed to test a hypothesis regarding medical treatment.

This definition proves problematic. Under this, any treatment option could be considered research because a large part of a physician’s job requires testing hypothesis about a particular patient and what treatment options would prove beneficial. To be considered credible, clinical research must be subject to a number of protocol reviews. These committees are intended to review the ethical ramifications of an experiment, insure that all involved are treated in accordance with the proper legislation, and to make sure the research is considered “scientific”. Even with the essential consent in human experimentation, the results of experimentation are useless unless reviewed by the proper scientific committees.

If non-validated practices are carried out without proper protocol, they cannot be justified by their benefit to science. Because such practices lack a valid basis in science they cannot be defended for the benefit they will provide to future patients. Above all, both treatment and research must be carried out with the intent to heal or improve quality of life for patients. Without restriction and review, research could possibly do more harm than good toward humankind. (Capron 139-142).

Historically, ethical human research has been based on the ideal of respect for competent and incompetent persons. A basis for personal respect is attributed to Kantian ethics, stating that “actively to do a person harm is to use him or her as a means to some end (good or perverse) not of his own choosing” (Capron 150). Using unethical research is an emotionally charged subject. Proponents claim that using the research would benefit all of mankind and help to atone for the atrocities. Opponents claim that it sets a dangerous standard of human rights violation and gives credibility to unethical medical research (NOVA). “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (Capron 146). From this statement we attain the basic standard of ethical research or treatment; this must be at the core of all human research.

Although gross examples of abuse of research subjects can never be justified by their benefit to a society as a whole, the concept of justice in relation to research must be addressed. While the concept of justice is important in Western culture, it is rarely applied to experimental treatment or research. As research is essential to medical advancement, questions concerning who must bear the burdens of research and who deserves to enjoy the benefits. If research is to be considered an egalitarian pursuit, the burdens must be spread throughout all races, cultures, and socioeconomic classes. Currently the burden falls primarily on the desperate, the very sick and very poor.

Historically experimentation has been performed on charity patients who knew very little about what was being done to them. These charity cases were not regarded as individuals, but as martyrs to a greater cause (Capron 153). Experimentation on charity cases is still integral to the establishment of clinical research. Justice has also become an issue in federal clinical trials for new cancer drugs. Thousands of desperate cancer patients enroll in clinical trials willing to try new drugs despite the risks and randomization of treatment. Half of all patients that sign up are placed in a control group, effectively given a placebo. Many cancer patients have complained that it is unfair to exclude them from access to experimental drugs, as some cancers and staging are considered a death sentence.

More than merely a philosophical pursuit, medical ethics directly affect the lives of millions of persons worldwide. As a society, we must be willing to face the repercussions of our medical advancement and to weigh the cost of progress. The benefits of experimental cancer treatment and research could save millions of lives. In the face of such a tragedy, would the sacrifice of one or more lives be justified?

Experimentation without informed consent is both morally and scientifically dangerous. In allowing such experimentation, legislation would be opening the doors to all types of inhuman research and experimental treatment. Additionally, in a society where cancer patients clamor for treatment, there is no excuse for the unethical treatment or research. If we are to live with the moral consequences of our science, medical ethics must be at the center of our actions.

Medicine must have the ultimate goal of physical wholeness in the light of disease. Physicians are entrusted with the lives of their patients and must do everything within their power to treat illness. Informed consent must be respected, especially in the cases of experimental treatment. Medical research, while extremely important, must be confined to an ethical, scientific setting. These ideals exist to ultimately protect patients and physicians; they exist to protect us from ourselves. In our desperation for a cure, we must not sacrifice the ethical standards that give credibility to medicine.