(2 of 2)
Unfortunately, as innocent as such a solution may seem, it is filled with as many perils as, well, a 19th century medicine man's wagon. In the case of cancer, quack remedies involve more than bustled ladies sipping alcohol-laced Lydia Pinkham's compound or husky baldpates rubbing themselves with hair-growth oil. They are a cruel hoax that distracts cancer patients from possibly effective therapy. Even if it were accompanied by a caveat, an FDA stamp of approval for Laetrile would draw still more cancer patients away from conventional treatment—with disastrous consequences. Says Dr. Vincent DeVita, director of cancer treatment at the National Cancer Institute (NCI): "Hardly a day goes by now that I don't hear of a case of a patient dying after leaving accepted treatment and taking Laetrile."
Of course, it is conceivable that the medical establishment may be wrong about Laetrile. History is filled with examples of medical shortsightedness. In the early 1 8th century, the Rev. Cot ton Mather, of all people, was accused by Boston doctors of in terfering with the "all-wise providence of God almighty" by rec ommending inoculation against smallpox. Louis Pasteur evoked the fury of medical savants with his germ theory of disease.
Even in our own day, medical ideas change as often as skirt lengths. Until recently, U.S. doctors almost always insisted on re moving the breast when cancer occurred there. Now, under pres sure from women horrified by the prospect of such mutilation, they are finally beginning to restrain their scalpels and try al ternatives, notably radiation therapy, that have long been fa vored by European doctors. Similarly, many doctors are now having second thoughts about the value of hysterectomies, which are about as common as tonsillectomies.
Still, the growing grass-roots movement may soon force the Government's hand. NCI'S acting director. Dr. Guy Newell, has already indicated that his agency may, in spite of the absence of any positive animal data — a prerequisite in the case of all other purported anticancer drugs — undertake a clinical test of Lae trile on humans, something it has steadfastly refused to do.
Though he still considers Laetrile "an out-and-out fraud," De-Vita allows that "testing it may be more ethical, more beneficial and less harmful to the public than what is happening now."
Possibly, as Ingelfinger suggests, a public trial supervised by a collaboration of doctors and laymen might do more to bury Laetrile than all the official debunking. It would perhaps help repair the badly strained bond between medicine and the American people. Yet a too easy acquiescence by the FDA could, like any strong medication, produce unwanted and even dangerous side effects. By letting individuals use Laetrile, regardless of its value, the Government would be abrogating its traditional responsibilities to protect the national wellbeing. It could also fan the already widespread public suspicion of contemporary medicine and indeed of scientific expertise generally. However justified such suspicions may occasionally be, the notion of setting lay judgment and emotions against the best advice of science raises disturbing questions. Above all, the benefits of a public test must be weighed against the dangers of false hopes raised and sound treatments ignored.