b17 as an alternative cancer cure

7/30/2019 B17 as an alternative cancer cure

1/27

MORAL AND ETHICS IN ENGINEERING PROFESSION KXEX2165

B17 as an Alternative to Chemotherapy

Treatment for Cancer

Ahmad Fahmi Bin Akmat

Aiman Bin Ruslan

Mohammad Hafiz Bin Abu Hassan

Mohd Elyas Ariff Bin Shaibudin

2010


2/27


3/27

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, we would like to express our gratitude to our Moral and Ethics in Engineering

Profession lecturer, Encik Baharudin. He has been a great help in this assignment. With his advice, tips,

and guidance, we completed our assignment smoothly and successfully. We also thank for his many

helpful suggestions in our preparation of this assignment. The comments of him were valuable in the

development of our initial draft.

Encik Baharudin is a capable lecturer. After taking this moral subject, we clearly know and

understand about engineering ethics, professional and ethical responsibility, ethical problem-solving

techniques and other roles of an engineer. Besides, he also let us knows engineers have to improve the

quality of life of the society through their inventions and innovations. To do this, an engineer needs to

have leadership qualities particularly to face the ever increasing challenges of a competitive world.

Future leader of society should demonstrate good social skills and demeanor that reflects the multi

cultural and multi religious society in Malaysia.

Furthermore, Encik Baharudin is a creative and innovative lecturer. He always use different

methods or teaching ways to attract us and let us understand well. He is a friendly, patient and

outstanding lecturer too. He is fair to his students and we respect him by all means.

Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to our members, Mohd Elyas Ariff,

Mohammad Hafiz, Ahmad Fahmi and Aiman for their contribution and patience during the endless

process of developing this assignment.


4/27

B17 as an Alternative to Chemotherapy Treatment for Cancer

A.

Case Introduction

Cancer is a medical term when a group of cells in the body display uncontrolled growth. In the world,

cancer rates could further increase by 50% to 15 million new cases in the year 2020, according to the

World Cancer Report, the most comprehensive global examination of the disease to date.

This has sparked medical experts in a race to find a cure for cancer as it brings great prospect to the

medical world. There are many cure to cancer found in the past decade and most of the cure has a

destructive effect to the body.

Some of the most popular cures of cancer includes chemotherapy apart from other means.

Chemotherapy, in its most general sense, is the treatment of disease by chemicals especially by killing

micro-organisms or cancerous cells. Most commonly, chemotherapy acts by killing cells that divide

rapidly, one of the main properties of cancer cells. This means that it also harms cells that divide rapidly

under normal circumstances: cells in the bone marrow, digestive tract and hair follicles; this results in

the most common side effects of chemotherapymyelosuppression (decreased production of blood

cells), mucositis (inflammation of the lining of the digestive tract) and alopecia (hair loss). As a whole,

chemotherapy destroys most cells and by doing so it stops the spread of the cancerous cells.

Apart from chemotherapy, the use of vitamin B17 is said by several medical experts, as an alternative

cancer cure. Vitamin B17, also know as Laetrile and Amygdalin is found in most fruit seeds, namely

apricot seeds. The apricot seed was claimed as the cure for all cancers over 35 years ago. Since vitamin

B17 is only a type of supplement to the body and can be acquired by the body naturally from nuts and

fruits, it is said to have a lesser impact on the body. But the lack of testing done on B17 and facts about


5/27

the vitamin is said to be suppressed by medical agencies around the world. And testing done to the

vitamin is not done in a large scale and most of the time it is not published.

The question that arises is that should other means of method of curing cancer be banned in order to

protect hospitals instead of patients of cancer. Is it morally justified for the FDA and hospitals to hide

information from public in this case? Should hospitals opt for alternative medicine instead of relying

fully on chemotherapy?

## There have been reports saying that B17 contains a considerable amount of cyanide which if

taken at a large amount can cause death. But cases of cyanide poisoning happen rarely with only 2 cases

of death in the span of 20 years (1980-200). This suppression is caused by the fact that if there is an

alternative to chemotherapy, most hospitals will lose a considerable amount of prospects from cancer

treatment services thus it is better to just keep it underground instead of publishing it. If any hospital

uses laetrile the law says that they jeopardize any grants from the government as well as any money

from Medicaid and other hospital insurance originating from the government. Since nearly all of hospital

revenues come from patient insurance, not one hospital in the U.S. will take the chance and use any

banned substance including, Amygdalin (also called Vitamin B17 and Laetrile ). ##


6/27

B. The moral issueShould this type of information about alternative cure to cancer be suppressed from the public just to

protect hospital agencies around the world?

Are the doctors and FDA morally justified in hiding the truths from patients if B17 can be considered as

an alternative treatment to cancer?

Should the use of B17 be widely introduced as an alternative treatment?

Is it morally right to hide facts from another individual just to bail out someone who has close tie with

you?

C. Analysis of Issuesa. Factual issues:

1. There are cases where cancer patients were cured by B17. B17 can be considered as analternative medicine for cancer.

2. B17 is a cheaper treatment compared to chemotherapy and can be obtained naturally.3. Research on the B17 is not done progressively by FDA or any neutral parties.4. Chemotherapy is a type of poison but it still being used to treat cancer whereas B17 which

comes naturally from apricot seeds apart from others is banned from being used as cancer

remedies.

5. Cancer is a serious medical problem and there will be more than 15 million new cases by theyear 2020.


7/27

b. Conceptual issues:1. The definition of safe is vague. How is safeness measured? To which extend does a treatment

can be considered safe to use is still unclear. In the context of cancer therapy, chemotherapy

has a worse side effect to cancer patients compared to the effect of cyanide overdose which is

highly unlikely to happen but latter is still being used, approved by FDA and considered safe.

2. It is not clear whether B17 is not approved by FDA because of the cyanide content in thecompound of B17 or due to pressure on FDA to protect hospitals from losing revenues from

cancer patients. No independent bodies have done any tests on B17 without bias.

Moral issues:

1. Is it morally justified for FDA and hospitals to hide information about B17?2. Should FDA and hospitals limit options for patients to seek other means of treatment for cancer

besides chemotherapy?

3. Can hospitals monopolize on the usage of chemotherapy treatment for the sake of profit?

The Four Moral Dimensions:

1. Human Safety: Human safety is an important aspect when it comes to medical treatment forcancer patients. First of all, we need to define the meaning of safety. By doing so, then we can

compare how chemotherapy and other alternative treatment such as B17 should be use in

fighting cancer. We might say that, chemotherapy is very efficient in fighting cancer but there

are still considerable risks of going through chemotherapy. Then the question that arises is why

patients cant use B17 if it somehow helps them to fight cancer. FDA stated that B17 is banned

due to the content of cyanide in the B17 chemical compound. If for example hospitals then

manage the prescription of B17 to patients, then how it is not better compared to

chemotherapy where in fact, chemotherapy has a much more side effects to the patient?


8/27

2. Useful and convenient product:In a way we can compare B17 to chemotherapy as both aretreatment to cancer. Eventhough chemotherapy is used as the main treatment to cancer; B17

can then be use as a supplement to help speed recovery from cancer. If we compare these two

products, we can say that B17 can be considered as a useful and a much more convenient

product compared to chemotherapy in some ways. First of all it comes naturally. From there, we

can conclude that it is way more obtainable compared to chemotherapy. Secondly, if it does

help in fighting cancer, it can be said that it is a convenient product by reducing medical bills of

patients as it provides a cheaper alternative to chemotherapy.

3. Economic benefits to stockholder: By approving B17, hospitals will in a way lose a considerableamount of income, but it greatly helps the patients. It is in the code of ethics for medical

conduct where doctors where it states that: Beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best

interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.). From there we can see that the doctors

should put patients first and not money.


9/27

D. Ethical Theoriesa. Utilitarian Analysis:

Action: FDA and hospitals keep information away from public knowledge and continue to use

chemotherapy as sole treatment to cancer without offering any other alternatives.

Parties that are affected directly by the action above:

1. Hospitals will gain a considerable amount of income from the treatment of chemotherapy whichis needed to be done in cycles.

2. Patients that are receiving cancer treatments from hospitals.3. Insurance company will gain profit from the increase in premium each time a patient receives

chemotherapy.

4. Chemotherapy supplier will continue to run its business without being affected by alternativetreatments.

Parties that are affected indirectly by the action above:

1. Pharmacies will lose out in the sales of B17 since it is impossible for pharmacies to providechemotherapy treatment.

2. Family members of patients which are affected financially by ongoing cancer treatments.Consequences of action

The action of FDA and hospitals in keeping information away from public has some good and bad

consequences to the parties discussed earlier.

Some of the good consequences include most of all profit to most of the parties discussed earlier. It is

known that chemotherapy is much more expensive compared to supplements such as B17. From there,


10/27

hospitals gain income from insurance coverage and at the same time insurance companies can increase

their premium from the claims made by patients. This is because there are no government hospitals in

the US and it is important for the people to have medical insurance. Insurance companies gain profit

from the increase in premium when claims are made by patients. FDA can then bail out hospitals when it

comes to treating patient of cancer. From the factual issues above, we know that cancer is a very good

businesses opportunity where hospitals and other parties can gain profit from cancer treatments. If

there are alternatives in the market that can assist the patients to be cured which uses less money from

patients, then doctors and hospitals will surely lose out a considerable amount of profit.

In the other hand, there is also a downside of the action described earlier. First of all, by keeping B17

banned from the hospitals, patients have no alternative when it comes to cancer treatments. They have

to opt for chemotherapy treatment. Since there are no alternatives, doctors will still advice patients to

go for chemotherapy and patient will be more financially constrained by medical bills. This will be

different if there is an alternative treatment which is way cheaper and can be obtained easily by the

patients. Since B17 can assist patients to be cured from cancer, treatments will be cheaper for them if

compared to the patient to undergo more cycles of chemotherapy or radiotherapy. From there we can

see that in general, patients which are financially constrained will benefit most if FDA does not ban B17.

As discussed, we can see that this action only has positive effects on a very specific group of people

which are mainly, hospitals giving out chemotherapy treatment and FDA which has a significant interest

in keeping the hospitals to continue its business as usual. But the negative effects are much more

significant where more people will suffer physically, mentally and financially if the action is taken.

Therefore, by utilitarian analysis, it is much more morally correct if alternative treatments are given to

patients even though the treatments are much cheaper and bring less profit to the hospitals but in

general help to assist patients in fighting cancer.


11/27

b. Kantianism theory analysisAccording to Immanuel Kant, only thing in the world good without qualification is a good will. The theory

is based on moral principle that he calls the categorical imperative. In categorical imperative, there are 2

formulations. Now we will discuss both the formulation and applies it to the case above.

1st

formulationAn act is morally right for a person in a certain situation if, and only if, the persons

reason for carrying out the action is a reason that he or she would be willing to have

every person act on, in any similar situation. In other word is universalizing.

Then we apply this formulation to the case.

The rule will be: FDA and hospitals can take advantage over people by keep information away from

public knowledge and continue to use chemotherapy as sole treatment to cancer without offering any

other alternatives for the sake of profit.

If rule is universalized: Any agency can take advantage over other people by keep information away to

gain benefit for themselves.

The rule cannot be universalized. Is it morally right to hide information or truth and let people live in

misery to gain or obtain benefit? The answer is no. This is because every human have their own rights.

We have the rights to be respected; live; have privacy; receive benefits through fair and honest

exchange in a free marketplace; and not to be injured.

Now we go to the 2nd

formulation.

2nd

formulation - Act so that you treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves and never

only as a means to an end.


12/27

In this formulation, we can know whether immorality occurs when we merely use others, reducing them

to mere means to our ends, treating them as mere objects to gratify our needs.

If we apply this formulation to the case, which FDA and hospitals keep hiding the information about the

alternative treatment for cancer from people to monopolize chemotherapy and gain profit. FDA and

hospitals treated people to an end and not as having a value of their own. The end here is referring to

FDA and hospitals that gain profit while means is referring to the action of FDA hiding the information

natural treatment from people. Other people are valuable, not merely insofar as they can serve our

purposes; they are also valuable in themselves.

Therefore from both of the formulations, it is morally wrong for FDA to hide information about B-17 or

other natural treatment for cancer so that they can gain benefits. Causing people who suffer cancer to

pay expensive treatment like chemotherapy plus suffer the pain and effect of the process. What FDA did

is wrong.

c. Duty ethicsAnother analysis that we can use is duty ethics. It state that individual person must be respected, and

action are ethical that maintain this respect for the individual. People have duty, which is to protect the

right of the others. Here we consider 2 parties:

FDA(U.S Food and Drug Administration) Hospital


13/27

FDA(U.S Food and Drug Administration)

One of the many duty of this organization is obviously to hold paramount the safety and welfare of the

people. They are responsible in protecting and promoting public health, they control safety regulation

which varies widely by the type of product, its potential risks, and the regulatory powers granted to the

agency. The FDA regulates most products with a set of published standards enforced by a modest

number of facility inspections.

As an independent organization to oversee the production of medicine, FDA is obliged to facilitate the

production without any interference from other organization with benefits from any decision made by

FDA. in the case of B17, FDA is said to have made a decision of banning the vitamin as a measure of

protecting hospitals income. By doing so, FDA failed to perform its duty as a neutral organization.

FDA regulates almost every facet of prescription drugs, including testing, manufacturing, labeling,

advertising, marketing, efficacy and safety, yet FDA regulation of cosmetics is focused primarily on

labeling and safety. This means that their scope also involve in researching the drug and medicine to be

use. This is done to maintain the public health.

However, despite the positive effect of the vitamin B17 on cancer patient, they did not do extensive

research on B17. Chemotherapy, as we all know, the side effect is really bad. Not to mention some of

the patient died because of the side effect of the chemotherapy. As for vitamin B17, there is no side

effect known yet. However, there are significant amount of cases where cancer patient improving and

getting better when consuming this vitamin. FDA only state that there are cyanide content in the

chemical compound of vitamin B17 and can be lethal if excessively consumed. Cyanide is dangerous and

can cause death if not treated with caution, but is the chemotherapy chemical compound any safer?

Obviously no. FDA is believed not to conduct extensive research on vitamin B17, which have the


14/27

potential to be the cure for cancer. If they conduct extensive research, then maybe they can improve it

on the cyanide part and make it safer rather than just banned the vitamin.

Ironically, FDA claimed to protect public health by banning vitamin B17 because of the cyanide content

which is naturally found in the chemical compound of the vitamin but the question is how about the

chemical compound of chemotherapy?

the deadly mustard gases used first in World War I became the topic of much research

interest. Mustard gas greatly reduced the number of white blood cells in those unfortunate

enough to be exposed to it. The active ingredient in the mustard gas was dichloroethylsulfide,

and it was identified as the cause of theleukopenia. Dichloroethylsulfide caused leukopenia

by slowing the rate at which white blood cells reproduced.

Researchers eventually realized that if dichloroethylsulfide could affect the rate of white

blood cell division it might also slow the rate of cancer cell division, a rate that was faster than

normal. However, the studies also showed that in addition, exposure to the mustard gases

caused bone marrow damage, created nausea and loss of hair, the all-to-common side effects

of chemotherapy. After World War II, scientists began to synthesize analogues (compounds

similar in molecular structure but with quite different properties) of the mustard gas

dichloroethylsulfide and dichloroethylamines ("nitrogen mustards") as

possible chemotherapeutics. By the 1960s these new compoundsmechlorethamine,

cycloposhphamide, chlorambucil, and melphalanwere part of the cancer chemotherapy

arsenal, and they are still used today.

http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/pharm/chemo/readings/ages.htm
http://start%28%27../glossary/leukopen.htm')%22=%22http://start%28%27../glossary/leukopen.htm')%22=%22http://start%28%27../glossary/leukopen.htm')%22=%22http://start%28%27../glossary/leukopen.htm')%22=%22


15/27

The chemical compound which exists in chemotherapy was derived from mustard gas which was used

during war- to kill. Clearly FDA is did not carry out their duty which is to maintain and improve the public

health. If they really want to improve the public health, they should do an extensive research on vitamin

B17, rather than just banned it after some lousy research.

Hospital

Hospital is under the medical ethics that should be the guideline on the duty of the physician and

doctors. For example:

Autonomy: the patient have the right to choose or to refuse the treatment Honesty: the patient deserves to know about the possible treatment and his/her condition.

As for this case, the patient mostly did not know about the vitamin B17. All they know about is just the

chemotherapy. Why this does happens? The fact about vitamin B17 is not being told to public. Only a

few of us heard about it. By doing this, the patient did not have any other option than to undergo

chemotherapy in order to cure their cancer. Theres a breach on the duty for both FDA and Hospital

since they disclosed the fact about vitamin B17 and thus restrict the choice of the patients treatment.


16/27


17/27

III. The Right to Privacy of Your Medical Records

TheHIPAA Act also outlines who else, besides you (the patient), may obtain your records, and for what

purposes. Patients are often surprised about who has these rights.

IV. The Right to Make a Treatment Choice

As long as a patient is considered to be of sound mind, it is both his right and responsibility to know

about the options available for treatment of his medical condition and then make the choice he feels is

right for him. This right is closely associated with the Right to Informed Consent.

V. The Right to Informed Consent

No reputable practitioner or facility that performs tests, procedures or treatments will do so without

asking the patient or his guardian to sign a form giving consent. This document is called "informed

consent" because the practitioner is expected to provide clear explanations of the risks and benefits

prior to the patient's participation, although that does not always happen as thoroughly as it should.

VI. The Right to Refuse Treatment

A patient may refuse treatment as long as he is considered to be capable of making sound decisions, or

he made that choice when he was of sound mind through written expression (as is often the case when

it comes to end-of-life care). This includes the right to refuse surgery.


18/27

VII. The Right to Make Decisions about End-of-Life Care

Each state in the Unites States governs how patients may make and legally record the decisions they

make about how their lives will end, including life-preserving measures such as the use of feeding tubes

or ventilators.

______________________________________________________________________________

There are also some rights Americans think they have as patients that are missing. It's

important that patients are aware of all of these so that you can be sure to takes steps to ensure the

care you need, want and deserve. Doctors should also make it clearand accept the factthat a patient

has the right to delay, refuse or withdraw permission for a particular therapy at any time.

Are the doctors morally justified in hiding the truths from patients if B17 can be considered as a

treatment to cancer? This is the dilemma face by any doctors around the world about this case.

Previously, we have stated that doctors are responsible for any treatments available which suits each

patient. But, for the sake of profit, they are told to maintain the conventional chemotherapy treatments

which cost thousand dollars per year for each patient. This is morally wrong if we refer to patients rights

which are the right to make a treatment choice.

Each patient also should be informed for each treatment they may get. Although the FDA always

blaming the B17 for poisonous cyanide in the compound, then what about the side effect of

chemotherapy treatments? Chemotherapy can produce many side effects, such as:

Anemia, low red blood cell count Low white blood cell count (this increases risk for infection) Hair loss, or thinning hair


19/27

Bleeding or bruising (due to low platelet count) Dry skin, or rashes Fatigue Diarrhea, constipation Nausea or vomiting Muscle and nerve problems Lung problems and difficulty breathing; coughing excessively Fertility and sexuality problems

But, it may cause some negative decision if we just follow the patients right with out any assistance of

doctors or health advisor. Each advice given by the doctors is actually supported by their knowledge and

experience. Not all of the treatments given are based on their interest on profits. They are actually the

experts and we cannot neglect any of their words if we still want to cure our illness.

e. Virtue ethicsVirtue ethics is an approach to ethics which emphasizes the character of the moral agent, rather than

rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking. Virtues are desirables habits or

tendencies in action, commitment, motive, attitude, emotions, and ways of relating to others.

In virtue ethics, actions are considered right if they support good character traits and wrong if they

support bad character traits. This analysis focuses on words such as responsibility, honesty, competence,

and loyalty.

It is trickier to apply as it seems less concrete and less susceptible to rigorous analysis rather than the

other methods.


20/27

A hospital is an institution for health care providing patient treatment by specialized staff and

equipment while FDA is an agency which responsible for protecting and promoting public health

through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements,

prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals,

blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), veterinary

products, and cosmetics.

But for this case of FDA and hospitals hiding the information about the natural treatment or B17 for

cancer from people to gain profit, the analysis would be focus on responsibility and honesty of them. All

people around the world trusted this agency and institution because they are responsible to protect and

promote public health. But if the agency itself is hiding information that can cure cancer to protect the

medical institution, then the agency itself is not responsible. They cheat on other people for their own

benefit. By hiding the truth also shows that the agency is not honest to the people that trust them for

their researches and capabilities.

The discussion above draws the line that the agency is not ethical by hiding good information of natural

cancer treatment or B-17 from people. They let people suffering cancer and chemotherapy treatment so

that they can protect the medical institutions.


21/27

E. Ethical Codes of Parties

The medical profession has long subscribed to a body of ethical statements developed primarily

for the benefit of the patient. Since 1847, the American Medical Association revolutionized medicine in

the United States and they unanimously adopted the world's first national code of professional ethics in

medicine, the AMA's Code of Medical Ethics.

As a statement of the values to which physicians commit themselves individually and collectively,

the Code is a touchstone for medicine as a professional community. It defines medicines integrity and

the source of the professions authority to self-regulate. The following Principles adopted by the

American Medical Association are not laws, but standards of conduct which define the essentials of

honorable behavior for the physician.

Principles of medical ethics

I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion andrespect for human dignity and rights.

II. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professionalinteractions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in

fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.

III. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in thoserequirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

IV. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, andshall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.

V. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain acommitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues,


22/27

and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when

indicated.

VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free tochoose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide

medical care.

VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to theimprovement of the community and the betterment of public health.

VIII. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.IX. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

Adopted by the AMA's House of Delegates June 17, 2001

Based on the list above, we found that FDAs decision on hiding the information of B17 is

actually make doctors in quite guilty situation. If we refer to the second principles, doctors or health

advisor need to be honest with every advice relates to the patients condition. Most doctors must

already well-known about the benefits of B17 compounds. But, since this compound is not verified by

the FDA, doctors cant give something that is illegal such as B17 to their patients since it comes with

their own risk although studies showed that any supplement food that contained B17 is good for killing

cancer cells. This will automatically clashes with the third principle, which is A physician shall respect

the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary

to the best interests of the patient.

If we refer to the fifth principles, doctors and physician should make relevant information

available to public, including the patient. So, FDA is clearly trying to avoid public from being informed

about alternative cancer treatment besides of chemotherapy conventional treatment. Rumors said that

by hiding this information, they can save thousands of hospital agencies around the world since patient


23/27

with cancer will always seek for the only treatment available that is chemotherapy. Patient has their

own rights to choose the best treatment that they get from hospitals and supplements of B17 are one of

the best.


24/27

F. Risk-Benefit AnalysisIn risk-benefit analysis, we will determine what the risk and benefit of cancer treatments to the patients;

chemotherapy and B17 to the cancer patients. In this analysis, the most favorable ratio between risks

and benefits sought. This analysis is very difficult to this case because the risk and benefit is very

subjective.

For this case, there are 2 parties who take the risks and the benefits. The patients and the FDA agency

plus the hospitals. As we all know the effect of cancer is death. In fact, cancer is a leading cause of death

worldwide. The disease accounted for 7.4 million deaths (or around 13% of all deaths worldwide) in

2004. If the patient did not take any treatment, as above, the patient life time would be shorter than

who took any or both treatment above.

Now we apply the analysis to the patient. If the patient undergoes chemotherapy, the following list is an

overview of possible short- and long-term side effects that can occur as a result of chemotherapy. Keep

in mind that some side effects are temporary, and others can be minimized through medication and

management by your doctor. Hair loss, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, infection, fatigue, nerve pain and

muscle pain, decrease in red blood cells and/or white blood cells, heart disorders and leukemia are the

effects. As for the benefits, chemotherapy can reduce the number of cancer cells that spread to other

parts of the body, reducing the likelihood that cancer will return and potentially prolonging life and can

be used before surgery to shrink larger tumors, making less invasive surgery possible.

If the patient takes B17 as treatment for the cancer, the risk would be zero because B17 is just a vitamin

for our body. The only risk is that if the patient overdose on the vitamin is it can cause poisoning. For

example, apricot seeds, one of the most popular forms of B17, also contain trace amounts of cyanide. If

taken in excess, poisoning could occur resulting in severe illness. As for the benefits, it is believed that


25/27

B17 can cure cancer because the enzyme in the vitamin can destroy only the cell of cancer. The

treatment is still in doubt because it is not proven officially (as this is the dilemma in our case study).

If we apply this to the FDA agency and the hospitals, chemotherapy will not risk the parties accept bring

only benefits. The parties dont have to spend millions of money to do research for the B17 that can be

obtained naturally, easily and free by the cancer patients. As long as the chemotherapy still undergo by

cancer patients, medical institution will gain benefits from the process.

If FDA approved the B17 as an alternative for cancer treatment, the agency will take the risk of pressure

from pharmacists and hospitals thus lost profit in for the medical institution. People will no longer

depending on chemotherapy as it is extremely expensive and causes many side effects to the patients.

The result from the analysis is people who suffering cancer should undergo both of the treatment as the

chemotherapy is the only treatment approved and officially cure the cancer while B17 can be taken as

supplement because it has no side effect in control amount and can cure cancer naturally. Those

combination will greatly reduce the chemotherapy treatment cycle thus save the cost for the treatment.

But in moral and ethics side of view, FDA should not ban B17 as alternative for cancer treatment. The

agency should continue the research on B17 as cure for cancer and spread the result widely to all the

people.


26/27

G. Conclussion

This case is still in dilemma for medical practitioners including FDA, hospital institutions and pharmacists.

They have to support each other by hiding the information about the alternative cancer treatments so

that medical institution will not fall down not just economically but also their pride and profession.

But for the sake of humanity and all the people that suffering cancer, what they are doing now is totally

immoral as discussed earlier in every aspect of moral. The medical practitioners have to stop focusing on

profit but perform their duties according to the ethics in their profession.

Back to the dilemmas, FDA and hospitals are not morally justified to hide the information as the

information will bring more good effects to the patients, public and also the medical practitioners. FDA

and hospitals should not limit the options for patients because it is their profession or responsibilities to

serve the best to prevent and cure any disease or illness. Lastly, hospital can never monopolize on the

usage of chemotherapy as it is strictly violating their codes of ethics.

H. References


27/27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA#Scope_and_funding http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/pharm/chemo/readings/ages.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics http://www.medicinenet.com/chemotherapy/article.htm http://www.1cure4cancer.com/continue_pp2.htm

b17 as an alternative cancer cure

Documents