Search

This article examines how Australian providers of unproven autologous 'stem cell treatments' legitimise these products and their practices. We focus on the strategies employed by providers in their efforts to create and sustain a market for procedures that have yet to be proven safe and clinically efficacious. Drawing on the work of Thomas Gieryn and Pierre Bourdieu and the findings of research involving an analysis of direct-to-consumer online advertising of clinics that sell purported 'stem cell treatments' and interviews with clinicians who provide them, we examine the mechanisms by which medical legitimacy for these products is established and defended. We argue that Australian providers employ a number of strategies in order to create medical legitimacy for the use and sale of scientifically unproven therapies. A key strategy employed by providers of stem cell treatments is to use markers of social distinction, drawing strongly on the symbols of science, to confirm their legitimacy and differentiate their own practices from those of other providers, who are posited as operating outside the boundary of accepted practice and hence illegitimate. We argue there is a paradox at the heart of the autologous stem cell treatment market. Providers aim to create legitimacy for their work by emphasising the potential benefits of their 'treatments', their expertise and the professionalisation of their practices in an environment where regulators are yet to take a firm stance; they are also required to undertake the challenging task of managing patients' hopes and expectations that both enable and potentially jeopardise their operations and revenue. We conclude by suggesting that providers' creation of symbolic capital to establish medical legitimacy is a crucial means by which they seek to bring unproven 'stem cell treatments' from the margins of medicine into the mainstream and to portray themselves as medical pioneers rather than medical cowboys who exploit vulnerable patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

General practitioners have implicitly been given responsibility for guiding men's decisions about prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer, but patients' expectations of the bounds of this responsibility remain unclear. We sought to explore how well-informed members of the public allocate responsibilities in prostate-specific antigen screening decision-making. In 2014, we convened two Community juries in Sydney, Australia, to address questions related to the content and timing of information provision and respective roles of patients and general practitioners in screening decisions. Participants in the first jury were of mixed gender and of all ages (n = 15); the participants in the second jury were all male and of screening age (n = 12). Both juries were presented with balanced factual evidence on the harms and benefits of prostatespecific antigen screening and expert perspectives on ethico-legal aspects of consent in medical practice. In their deliberations, jurors agreed that general practitioners should take responsibility for informing men of the options, risks and benefits of prostatespecific antigen testing, but arrived at different positions on whether or not general practitioners should also guide screening decisions. Jurors also disagreed on how much and when general practitioners should provide detailed information about biopsies and treatments. These responses suggest that for prostate-specific antigen testing, there is a public expectation that both the allocation of responsibility between general practitioners and their male patients, and the level of information provided will be tailored to individual men. In the presence of expert uncertainty, a well-informed public may have reason to embrace or resist shared decision-making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]