Circumcision Breakthrough in HIV Transmission

Earlier this year, the Lancet reported that circumsized males carry a lower risk of contracting HIV through sexual intercourse. In the African continent, where most men are uncircumsized, and any scientific evidence that points toward curbing the outbreak of AIDS is helpful, this scientific breakthrough is most welcome.
In Zambia, radio correspondent Kennedy Gondwe made a public announcement that he was undergoing the circumcision procedure on the air, and received mixed responses. Gondwe stressed the relative ease of the procedure and noted he was up and driving back home in no time. Some listeners responded that Gondwe's testimonial angered them, while others felt confident they could now undergo this somewhat-taboo procedure. Gondwe also makes it known that he gets tested for HIV several times a year. It is great to read about someone using their access to the public to help educate others on this important issue.
I applaud Gondwe for his actions and for his attempt to scale back the fears and questions about circumcision. I just hope that when African men begin to line up at the doctor for this procedure, that the sex safe practices are preached and reiterated again. Several health agencies in the UN advocate circumcision in light of the the Lancet report, but also "the procedure offers only partial protection and that abstinence, condom use, having few partners and delaying the first sexual experience are all among the steps that need to be encouraged."
I do hope that the main tenets of safe sex are stressed in Africa, where the struggle with the Aids is all too well known. I hope that the news of circumcision curbing transmission of HIV does not present a sort of "get out of jail free" card for African men.

So, Which Side Was That Again, Eh...? The Horror of Wrong-Sided Surgery

You’re having surgery. All the authorizations have been given—all the forms signed…and preparations made.

You trust your surgeon’s credentials, education and expertise in providing you with the care you need. You have every confidence in the nursing staff.

Yet, you can’t arrive at the hospital before stopping at an art store to pick up…permanent markers—just as a precaution. “X” marks the spot, right?

You want to make sure there’s no question WHICH side of your body the surgery is to be performed on.

Sound wacky? Not when you consider that tales of doctors operating on the wrong side of a patient’s body—or removing the wrong organ or limb—happen with frightening frequency in hospitals across the country. The most recent case, involving an 82-year old Rhode Island patient, resulted in a $50,000 fine being levied against the hospital.

While the overall percentages are low, so-called “wrong-site surgery” occurs more often than is being reported, and has prompted a review of procedures and implementation of guidelines for hospitals to follow to prevent occurrences. Review the article and relate your own opinion on what can or should be done.

http://tinyurl.com/3bxcbx

Toss the kids in jail and throw away the key

LA Times, Monday, November 19, 2007 – Henry Weinstein

“U.S. leads in child life sentences, study says

California has sentenced more juveniles to life in prison without possibility of parole than any state in the nation except Pennsylvania, according to a new study by the University of San Francisco’s Center for Law and Global Justice.”

The article goes on to say that the US leads all other nations in children under 18 serving life sentences and that “51% of juveniles sentenced to life without parole were first-time offenders” and that black juveniles were 10 times more likely than white to be given life without parole.

What makes the nation with one of the highest standards of living most likely to incarcerate its children? Is it because our children are worse, more evil than the children in the rest of the world? Is it because we as a nation no longer know how to raise children with moral values intact? Or is it because our legal system is punitive and dysfunctional? What should we do to help the next generation? Continue to try to throw all the ‘bad ones’ in jail? Is there any evidence that this method working?

Dr. Venter and the MycoLaboratorium

Dr. Craig Venter cracked the human genome in the year 2000 using the genetic information of 5 individuals to sequence the human genome. More recently, Dr. Venter has patented the "mycoplasma laboratorium," a potential, partially synthetic living self-replicating organism, with an artificial genome derived from the genetic code of the mycoplasma genitalium and manipulated for functionality. Although, the artificial microbe has yet to successfully implant, Venter insists the future of this organism will result in revolutionary commercial advances. Development of the mycoplasma laboratorium hold evidence for numerous methods of use, such as green fuels to replace oil and coal, digest toxic waste, and absorb greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Designer microbes tailored to deal with pollution and excess carbon dioxide will also help meet the demands of future fuel needs.

 

Today, people can have their DNA analyzed for the potential of harmful genetic predisposition to life-threatening diseases thanks to Dr. Venter's work and the technology which supports it. In the future, the advances of the mycoplasma laboratorium may provide the technology necessary to relieve the world of its dependence on environmental pollutants as resources of energy.

 

Craig Venter: Creating life in a lab using DNA. Telegraph. UK. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/16/scilife116.xml&page=3. Accessed November 19, 2007.

 

 

 

Ethics in transplant

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/health/2007/11/13/AIDS.Transplants/

Recently, a woman contracted HIV and Hepatitis C because she received a kidney transplant from an HIV/Hepatitic C positive donor.

I don't know the I understand the process of organ donation enough to assume that the donor (who is dead, obviously) was screened for some devastating diseases before approving him or her as a donor. However, both the donor network organization adn the hospital where she received her organ knew that this donor was at a high-risk for these diseases and did not inform the organ recipient. Three other recipeints of this particular donor's organs also contracted both diseases through their new organs. There are several unethical issues in this case.

I beleive from what I understand is the reasoning for believing this man was high risk (he was a sexually active homosexual) is unethical. Though I do not have the specific research available, I believe that HIV is transmitted through heterosexual sex than through homosexual sex today. In addition, HIV can be transmitted through many other various ways. When I had my first open heart surgery in 1986, they were just beginning to screen blood donations for HIV. I was lucky enough to have 11 family members partake in direct donation, where their blood was set aside for me only. Therefore, I know that I did not receive containimated blood. However, anyone who received a blood transfusion around that time could have easily contracted HIV no matter their homosexuality or gender. As a nurse, my mother walked out of work through the ER one day and stepped directly on a used needle. It went through her shoe and into her foot. Thankfully, her repeated blood tests have shown she did not contract anything through this unfortunate accident, but it could have easily happened. Legally, we should not be judging anyone based on their sexuality, but contracting HIV has not been a "gay men" disease for some time (although in this case it was correct).

Second, if a donor is suspected to have infectious diseases, why in the world are they even considered to be a donor? WHY? How is that ethical? The recipient needs a new organ because they are fighting for his or her life. How is giving that person, especially an individual can be maintained on other life saving measures as is in this case, a diseased organ fixing the problem? In fact, it just creates other problems.

Transplant patients have to say of immunosuppresants for a great of time, if not their entire lives, in order to minimize the risk of organ rejection. Therefore, the person has a weakened, compromised immune system. Therefore, she is less capable of fighting and living with the viruses she contracted through her new, "healthy" organ.

What is perhaps the worst breech of ethics in this case is that the organ donation organization and the transplanting hospital knew of the risk and no one told the patient. They made a life changing decision for this patient that was not theirs to make. In fact, her history suggests that had she have known about the risk of these diseases, she would have declined the organ. Those who took this decision out of the recipients hands essentially killed her. Their decision led to her being infected with HIV, and although we have come a long way in helping HIV patients to lead much longer, healtheir lives than in the 1980s, it is still a death sentence.

Insurance in a Big Box

After several years of avoiding Walmart due to my disgust at its deplorable working conditions and treatment of its employees, well...I'm not going back there, but perhaps I'll stop trashing this mega-chain as much as I do. Finally folding (somewhat) to the pressure, Walmart is "Rolling Back" its stingy health insurance plans to provide somewhat more reasonable coverage for its 1.4 million employees.

For years, Walmart offered health insurance to its employees that cost too much for people who earn in the ballpark of $20,000/year. Bending under the pressure, Walmart has offered several different plans, with ranging deductibles, lessened the amount of time part time employees can be eligible, and lowered the cost of prescriptions to $4 for a monthly prescription.

While I won't be supporting Walmart anytime soon, or ever, I do feel this is the step in the right directions for one of our nation's top employers. Human resources are a company's number one asset--why not protect them?

Sidebar: TI grew up in a very small town which thrived as a mining and industrial town many decades ago. Obviously, those industries are long gone, as well as the thousands of jobs that accompanied them. About 15 years ago, Walmart rolled into town and thousands people from the surrounding areas lined up for jobs. This is common for the areas Walmart thrives in. I've just always been bothered by the company's lack of respect for employees, and that they take for granted the people who think themselves very fortunate to work there. Oh, and my parents are both union members and my father-in-law in a Regional Rep in the UAW.

Follow Up on Earlier Post

A few weeks ago, I posted about the common trend in parents waiving vaccinations (recommended by the CDC) for their children. Following up on that, I read an article in the New York Times regarding the dramatic decrease in deaths due to these diseases and thought I'd share. Good info for anyone on the fence about vaccinating their children.

Army Soldiers Subjected to Experimental Trauma Care Without Informed Consent

An article published in the New York Times on November 6^th discussed some ethical issues pertaining to the leadership and conduction of clinical studies of one of the top military trauma surgeons. Col. John Holcomb is the head of the Army’s Institute of Surgical Research based on the campus of the Brook Army medical Center in San Antonio. He is a strong advocate of clinical trials to improve trauma care; however, research in trauma medicine can be an ethical challenge because it involves novel treatments on severely injured patients who cannot give informed consent. Holcombe’s argument in support of conducting these clinical trials is that any ethical concerns “pale in comparison to the toll that traumatic injuries take on civilians and soldiers every day.”

One of the ethical issues is regarding the use of Factor VII, which promotes clotting in severe cases of bleeding. Some physicians feel that there is a lack of data on the benefits of Factor VII use (including some evidence that it can increase risk of blood clots), however Army surgeons have aggressively treated trauma patients with it under Holcombe’s direction. A clinical trial showed that Factor VII reduced the need for transfusions in patients and showed a nonsignificant trend toward reducing mortality (N=300). A larger trial to confirm outcomes is currently underway. Defending the use of Factor VII, Holcombe was quoted as stating, “You have a drug that you know is safe from the prospective randomized controlled clinical trials, and you have to make a decision. It’s not something you can decide to talk about. It’s really yes or no. You have a lot of people bleeding to death in Iraq.”

Holcome has also been criticized for advocating and participating in an ongoing clinical study of Polyheme, an experimental blood substitute that failed in a previous clinical study. The completed study, which ran from 2003 through last year, included patients with severe traumatic injuries who could not give informed consent. 54% of patients receiving Polyheme in the study experienced severe adverse events. It is interesting to note, however, that the FDA approved the currently ongoing trial even after review of the unpublished negative data of the first trial. This seems to indicate that the current evidence supports that the potential benefits of Polyheme outweigh the risks. Per Holcombe, “We’re not irresponsible people going out and doing evil experiments on small groups of patients.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/health/06prof.html?emc=eta1

Halloween-related ethics

Halloween Blog:

So, being a total paranormal aficionado, I thought you might find this interesting. This is the first of its kind that I know of, and was written up by the paranormal researchers at Eastern Paranormal (www.easternparanormal.com). Interesting for our class is the regards to faking séances, invoking evil spirits, or practicing of the occult – we have recently talked about the ethical treatment of a persons body and respective parts – so why not have some respect for their soul ?! Happy Halloween!

Paranormal Ethics
By: Gabreael
January 14, 2006
Dictionary.com's definition of ethics is as follows:

1. A set of principles of right conduct.
2. A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
3. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
4. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

Today I am writing about a disturbing trend that many in the paranormal field are whispering about, that is the ethics, or rather the lack there of being practiced by some groups in the field today. Below is a list of seven practices which should never be tolerated by any serious investigation groups:

1. Identity Theft. Identity theft is starting an organization intentionally with an identical or almost identical name to another well known group or former well known group. This is being done by individuals hoping that this will increase their search engine placement. This is a despicable act. If you know of a founder who has participated in such behavior you should immediately disassociate yourself from that group. It shows their true character. When founding a group at the very least you should do the following when searching for a name:

a. Google the name.
b. Do a "Who is" on the name.
c. Buy your name domain. You can get free domain hosting very often with www.godaddy.com with the purchase of your domain cost.

2. The open participation in a seance in private residence investigations. If a group wants to conduct a seance in the course of experiments for data or lack of data collection OUTSIDE of investigations in a controlled environment that is that private group’s prerogative. However, conducting a seance in a private investigation where activity is occurring is an unethical practice. Simply due to the fact that you open up the home to the possibility of more activity. I have personally witnessed several cases I was contacted on that this was the case. Any TRUE medium/psychic should NEVER need to participate in a seance to retrieve or communicate information.

3. Drinking on investigations. You should never consume alcohol or drugs on an investigation. This includes celebrating at the end of an investigation at that location. Last year I was contacted by someone that had a somewhat intense haunting in their former home that was only made worse three fold because of this sort of behavior. They had an investigation group come in, they had pictures of beer cans and such around during the investigation. The next time the group came back one of their members got a scratch running down their back. The home owner ended up selling the home for considerably less than the going market price because of the increased activity.

4. Provoking spirits. This is where a group comes in and intentionally invokes spirits by provoking them in a negative manner. This is done by making comments like, "You're a coward, I dare you to...." Again I was contacted a couple of years ago by a family that this had incurred in their home by a group. The family ended up having to move because the activity increased ten fold after that. We have some great paranormal photos. Not in one case was provoking used. Speaking openly to them while you are taking EVP's and shooting pictures is fine in a polite manner. It is when a group puts a negative spin on the tone of the investigation the leaves the door open for increased activity in the home.

5. Knowingly posting fraudulent evidence on your website. We have all witnessed groups posting everything from oil painting picture clips to intentionally hoaxed pictures. When a group does this they might as well shut their doors. They have lost all accountability. Evidence posted on your website should be run through a battery of test before posted publicly. Remember! If in doubt throw it out!

6. Affiliation with "Dark Art" practices. I am referring to Satanist, HooDoo Voodoo practitioners and the like. If you come to the realization that one of your members are participating in such practices you need to disassociate them immediately. Because of my deep study of demonology through the years I have been consulted on several incubus cases where Satanic ritual practices and HooDoo practices had been preformed prior to the attacks. You never want to knowingly include such a person in a serious investigation. Often these sort of people have dark entities attached to them that can make a volatile situation even more so.

7. Association fraud. Anyone who has had any kind of media coverage has had to deal with this. We have been contacted and by several former businesses stating that a group has contacted them claiming association with us when they have none requesting to do an investigation at their site. One time they were even stupid enough to put it in an email that was immediately forwarded to me by a contact. This is a deplorable act. We then went on to TOTALLY not recommend this group because of this DOCUMENTED behavior. All paranormal groups should have an "About Us Page" that clearly states who their members and associates are. We know of one group here in Eastern Carolina last year that posted they were conducting an investigation with TAPS on their website. They were not, and rightfully so were totally debunked.

More on DTC

Last month, I discussed the efficacy of sleeping pills and the use of advertising to sell Rozerem, a newer sleeping pill. I recently came across this report in the New England Journal of Medicine which examines the spending on Direct to Consumer (DTC)marketing of pharmaceuticals in its first decade. In 1996, Pharma spent 11.6 billion dollars on DTC marketing, which grew in 10 years to 29.9 billion dollars in 2005! I find this statistic ridiculous, that billions of dollars are being spent yearly and the costs of pharmaceuticals are rising as well. I can't see how this can be justified in our government. This article also mentions the steep decline in FDA advertising violation notification which went from 142 in 1997 to only 21 in 2006. Now of course I am sure that Pharma and ad agencies have honed their skills in the past decade to prevent breaking the rules, but I also feel the FDA may be too lax in regulating DTC marketing.
I continue to be shocked in finding information the costs of DTC advertising, and I feel strongly that some portions of the population are getting mixed messages. In trying to find more information on DTC marketing, I came across this info packet (http://www.rx-edge.com/Five_Strategies_for_DTC_Marketing_Success_in_the_Retail_Environment.pdf) from a marketing/advertising company. It is interesting to see some of their strategies and consider what you actually do see in a drugstore.

How efficacious does a microbicide need to be?

In the context of planning clinical trials for anti-HIV vaginal microbicides, some authors use mathematical modeling to demonstrate efficacy, with changing numbers based on differing assumptions. Using these simulations, researchers can demonstrate that even moderately effective microbicides can have a major impact on HIV transmission: “a 60% efficacious product, available to 20% of women and used in 50% of sex acts when a condom is not used could prevent 2.5 million new HIV infection over 3 years in high incidence countries.”[1]

The use of a microbicide is demonstrably a great benefit to the hypothetical population mentioned above. For the many, it clearly saves lives and provides protection to a part of the population that previously had few options. However, what if you were one of the women who used the product correctly and diligently whenever you were supposed to, but you were part of the other 40%, the 40 out of every 100 women for whom the microbicide failed to protect against HIV? You might feel cheated or lied to, that this product was supposed to protect against HIV and it didn’t for you. The accompanying literature explains that the product is not 100% effective, but the product is also put out in the population, because it does save lives. Just not yours.

Every product has this issue; none are 100% effective. So 1 out of every 10 or 100 or 1000 or more becomes infected or isn’t protected. But is 60% efficacy sufficient to justify a trial? Would you use it and depend on it? And if you wouldn’t, should others?

---

[1] Watts C, Kumuranayake L, Vickerman P, Terris-Presholt F. 12 – 15 May 2002. Microbicides 2002, Antwerpen, Belgium [Abstract] C319, 68.3

Brain-boosting drugs spark ethical debate in UK

08 Nov 2007 13:43:36 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Ben Hirschler LONDON, Nov 8 (Reuters) - A rise in healthy people popping pills to boost performance in exams or work, raises long-term ethical and safety concerns about the effects of such treatments, British doctors said on Thursday. The British Medical Association (BMA) wants a public debate about the risks and benefits of using drugs to improve memory and concentration, sometimes called "cognitive enhancement". The ability of prescription drugs and medical procedures to improve intellectual performance is likely to increase significantly in the next 20 to 30 years as technology advances. "We know that there is likely to be a demand by healthy individuals for this treatment," Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's Medical Ethics Committee said at the launch of a discussion paper on the issue. "However, given that no drug or invasive medical procedure is risk free, is it ethical to make them available to people who are not ill?" Surreptitious use of brain-boosting prescription drugs is particularly common in the United States and likely to increase in Britain, the BMA said. "There is a growing expectation that the use of these so-called cognitive enhancers in the UK is both imminent and inevitable," the BMA said. Today, the use of pharmaceutical aids to boost performance is mainly confined to certain groups -- notably students cramming for exams. Popular choices include drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, such as Ritalin, or methylphenidate, made by Novartis AG and others. Another favourite is modafinil, the active ingredient in Cephalon Inc's narcolepsy medicine Provigil. Such drugs are widely available to buy online. BOTOX FOR THE BRAIN In the future scientists may be able to provide more permanent fixes for bad memory or poor concentration through brain stimulation and neurotechnology. This would involve techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation -- sometimes referred to as "botox for the brain" -- where magnetic pulses are used to stimulate particular brain regions, and deep brain stimulation, where electrodes are inserted into the brain to transmit tiny electrical currents. These and future medical interventions could benefit individuals and, potentially, wider society, if they increase the competitiveness of the workforce. But "over-enhancement" of the brain's cognitive functions could have damaging side-effects. It may, for instance, impair a normal brain's ability to selectively filter out trivial or traumatic information, resulting in the individual being plagued by unwanted or traumatic memories. (Reporting by Ben Hirschler; Editing by Golnar Motevalli)

Medicinal marijuana

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/health/2007/11/06/Medical.Marijuana/


Above is a link to recent health news article. The story began with an individual who was fired from his job after he failed a drug test, even though his doctor provided a note stating his use was medicinal in a state where medicinal marijuana is legal. This is clearly discrimination. The individual sued to get his job back. However, the Supreme Court found that the firing was just as the individual was using an illegal drug. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided that anyone using marijuana for medicinal uses are still subject to legal repercussions if caught.

What is the purpose of legalizing something if discrimination against those who utilize that legalization is still legal? How can we prosecute people for doing something legal? How do we uphold blatant discrimination against someone who is following the law? The laws are put in the states hands – if the Supreme Court is going to override the state’s laws, what is the point of having state laws to begin with?

Mandated contraception in the poor...?

Because I was having a bit of a difficult time finding something particularly interesting to post and discuss, I consulted my wife, who thought about something she had discussed in her Ethics class. The idea their class was tossing around is the right for poor people to bear children. The sole classmate of my wife who supported it referred to how children are born into the welfare system as a result of their parents being also on welfare. Also, there was an idea thrust forward that was describing the overpopulation of the United States and how that is a problem that would be mitigated by mandating temporary infertility. (Really, according to my wife, the student said "Stupid people breed" and then came up with the euphemisms to cover herself)

Even a cursory evaluation would discern many issues with a policy like that. Before any ethical concerns, the technology is just not there. Sure, we can chemically castrate human beings, male or female, but that is not without permanent ramifications (like being able to bear children down the road). The other option is surgical castration, which, again, is difficult to undo. Even if it were possible, this notion brings up the idea of liability for the United States (or the respective states if this is where it would happen) insofar as contingencies for adverse reactions. Can the government guarantee all temporary castrations will be done without harm to the person? Or can the government guarantee full fertility when breeding privileges are restored? What if something goes wrong? Can the person sue the government for damages?

Add to all of this the ethical consequences of this notion. Look at the value of the dollar in the United States. A person who was once a middle class worker may, by today's standard be considered lower-middle or upper-lower class. So, someone who may have been able to have children may be banned a year or two later. It is funny, because typically, the lower paying jobs - the jobs of the impoverished in this country - make the jobs of the rich easier, whether it is making their hamburger or moping their floors. If those people are helping society function, which empirically they are, why should they not be able to raise a family? How far would the United States be able to go in suffocating people's rights? (Do they not do that enough already?)

As a postscript, in regards to the United States being overpopulated: the infant mortality rate is up, as is the death rate as a whole, so I'm not sure that allowing children to be born any different than how it is today would matter.

The first animal in orbit

Fifty years ago this week, the first animal went into orbit, setting the manned space program into motion[1]. The USSR launched Laika into space in a small capsule with enough food and water for seven days, and a heating and cooling system intended to keep the small capsule at a living temperature. The intent was that the dog would live for several days, slowly and peacefully dying from lack of oxygen. However, one of the rockets malfunctioned, causing failure of the cooling system, killing Laika after only several hours.

There was never any intent that Laika would come back from space and no way to retrieve her. Although the men in the space program had no guarantee of coming back and undertook the flights knowing the risks and dangers, there were at least systems and plans intended to bring them back from space safely. And the men willingly participated with full knowledge of what might happen. Laika participated willingly, too, but not because she knew or understood the outcome.

I’m not really suggesting that informed consent for animals is appropriate, and I’m not against animal experimentation when necessary. But how necessary was this experiment? The Soviet scientists did not disclose until just recently that Laika died much more quickly than they anticipated, from heat rather than oxygen deprivation. Though failure of the experiment may have contributed to the lack of public disclosure, perhaps they also realized that Laika was a sympathetic figure and people around the world would not appreciate the manner in which she died.

---

[1] Laika’s flight remembered 50 years on, http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Laikas-flight-remembered-50-years-on/2007/11/02/1193619147259.html

More Tax Dollars Spent Aiding Drug Addicts

The state of Massachusetts is starting a new program to hand out heroin overdose prevention kits. It is budgeted at less than $50,000, but I personally don't see how the state can be justified in spending tax dollars this way versus putting that money into public schools, drug education programs, or some other more worthy cause. While saving a life is indeed important, I feel this act is simply perpetuating drug use.

Saving lives is the obvious ethical choice. However, how is it ethical to provide this service without the follow through to get that person off of drugs and start their lives over again? Is this program a "Get Out of Death-Free" card? Will this send a message that it is ok to OD, the state of Massachusetts can easily save you? I feel that this program is too lenient on drug users and also irresponsible on behalf of the state.

Elephant on acid, dog head grafts and a seesaw to revive the dead

Madness or genius? Magazine compiles list of most bizarre tests ever conducted in name of scientific inquiry

• • Ian Sample, science correspondent
  • The Guardian
  • Thursday November 1 2007

To ascertain the effects of LSD on elephants, a zoo animal was given a dose 3,000 times larger than a human would take. The animal died within minutes. Photograph: Schalk van Zuydam/AP

One Friday in August 1962 Warren Thomas, director of Lincoln Park Zoo in Oklahoma City, raised his rifle and took aim at Tusko the elephant. With a squeeze of the trigger he scored a direct hit on the animal's rump, firing a cartridge full of the hallucinogenic drug LSD into the animal's bloodstream.

The dose was 3,000 times what a human might take for recreational purposes, and the results were extraordinary. Tusko charged around and trumpeted loudly for a few minutes before keeling over dead.

Thomas and his colleagues maintained the mishap was the result of a scientific experiment to investigate whether LSD brought on an unusual condition in which elephants become aggressive and secrete a sticky fluid from their glands. In a report of the incident submitted to the US journal Science four months later, the team concluded: "It appears that the elephant is highly sensitive to the effects of LSD."

The case of Tusko the elephant is among 10 of the most bizarre experiments carried out in the quest for knowledge and reported in New Scientist magazine today. If there is a fine line between madness and genius, many of those involved firmly crossed it.

One experiment in the 1960s saw 10 soldiers board an aircraft for what they believed was a routine training mission from Fort Hunter Liggett airbase in California. After climbing to around 5,000 feet the plane suddenly lurched to one side and began to fall. Over the intercom, the pilot announced: "We have an emergency. An engine has stalled and the landing gear is not functioning. I'm going to attempt to ditch in the ocean."

While the soldiers faced almost certain death, a steward handed out insurance forms and asked the men to complete them, explaining it was necessary for the army to be covered if they died.

Little did the soldiers know they were completely safe. It was merely an experiment to find out how extreme stress affects cognitive ability, the forms serving as the test. Once the final soldier had completed his form the pilot announced: "Just kidding about that emergency folks!"

A later attempt to repeat the experiment with a new group of unwitting volunteers was ruined by one of the previous soldiers, who had penned a warning on a sickbag.

One of the most gruesome experiments to make New Scientist's list was performed by the Soviet surgeon Vladimir Demikhov. In 1954 he unveiled a two-headed dog, created in the lab by grafting the head, shoulders and front legs of a puppy on to the neck of a German shepherd dog. Journalists brought in to examine the creature noted how milk dribbled from the stump of the puppy's head when it attempted to lap milk. Occasionally, the two would fight, with the German shepherd trying to shake the puppy off, and the puppy retaliating by biting back.

The unfortunate creation lived for six days, though Dr Demikhov repeated the experiment 19 more times over the next 15 years, with the longest-lived lasting a month. Although the work was dismissed as a publicity stunt outside the Soviet Union, Dr Demikhov was credited with developing intricate surgical techniques that paved the way for the first human heart transplant.

Several attempts to unravel the mysteries of human nature also make the list. Clarence Leuba, a psychologist from Yellow Springs, Ohio, set out to discover whether laughing when tickled was a learned or spontaneous reaction, and commandeered his newborn son and later daughter into the study.

Then there was Lawrence LeShan, a researcher from Virginia who in 1942 stood in a room of sleeping boys repeating the phrase "My fingernails taste terribly bitter" to see if he could break their nailbiting habit while they slept.

In another experiment, a doctor called Stubbins Ffirth from Philadelphia decided to drink fresh vomit from yellow fever patients to prove it was not a contagious disease. He claimed to be right when he failed to become ill in 1804, but scientists have since shown yellow fever is extremely contagious, but has to be transmitted directly into the bloodstream, for example from a mosquito bite.

A similarly flawed experiment by Robert Cornish at the University of California in the 1930s attempted to bring dead animals back to life by tilting them up and down on a seesaw. The few that did stir back to life momentarily after death were severely brain damaged.

Predictably, sex also appears on the magazine's list of bizarre experiments. When investigating the sexual arousal of male turkeys researchers at Penn State University were impressed to see that the birds would attempt to mate with lookalike dummies. Piece by piece they removed parts of the dummy and found that the males were still highly aroused when presented with no more than a head on a stick.

Top 10 most bizarre experiments

Elephant receives massive dose of LSD to see if it induces temporary madness.
Conclusion: LSD is fatal to elephants

Aircraft passengers told they are about to die in crash make more mistakes in written test.
Conclusion: Extreme stress harms cognitive ability

Two-headed dogs created by Soviet surgeon, above, but die within a month.
Conclusion: Tissue rejection makes animals incompatible

Psychologist begins experiments on son to test if laughing is spontaneous when tickled.
Conclusion: Laughing is an innate response to tickling

A room of nail-biting boys is played a recording or spoken announcements to break the habit while they sleep.
Conclusion: Sleep learning is possible. Others prove otherwise

To test if people can sleep through anything, volunteers have their eyes taped open and bright lights shone in their eyes.
Conclusion: The men dozed off in 12 minutes

People asked to smell ammonia, put hands in a bucket of frogs and watch porn.
Conclusion: Disgust has no single expression.

Doctor rubs vomit from yellow fever patients into open wounds and drinks it.
Conclusion: Mistakenly claims it is not infectious

Animal corpses placed on seesaw to restart circulation and bring them back to life.
Conclusion: Two animals survive with blindness and brain damage

Fake female turkey dismantled limb by limb to find minimum that a male will mate with.
Conclusion: Male turkeys aroused by a head on a stick, but not a headless body

Right to privacy, but what about responsibility?

HIPPA protects the right of patients to keep their medical history private. Privacy is extremely important, especially in small towns where everyone knows everyone. However, many of these small towns also have volunteer ambulance companies. These volunteer companies do abide by recommended body substance isolation (BSI) items, but these only include gloves, masks, and eye protection. EMTs routinely wear short sleeve shirts and shorts, all of which are their own clothes. Though common sense says for the individual to wear long pants and long sleeves if they have open wounds, they respond when a call comes in – they do not have work schedules. Therefore, they respond wearing what they put on in the morning – not necessarily expecting to respond to a call. In the cases of patients who have infectious disease, what are their responsibilities to the emergency personal who respond to their 911 calls? If they do have open wounds and blood is splatters, the potential for the EMT to contract whatever the patient has is very real. Without knowing if the patient has any infectious diseases, how can he or she prevent the spread of that disease? If the patient does disclose his or her status (assuming he or she does have an infectious disease), is it ethical for an emergency room physician to break doctor/patient confidentiality to inform the EMT that the patient has an infectious disease? d