Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
‘Lincoln at 200′
A few weeks ago, The New York Sun ran a piece about the lack of respect given to President Lincoln [Oped, “Lincoln at 200,” November 17, 2006]. I was reminded of this when it was announced that January 2 would be a day of remembrance for President Ford. When I was in school, we celebrated Lincoln’s birthday and Washington’s. We all knew their dates because they represented a day off from school. Nevertheless, each class had at least one lesson leading up to the holiday where we all learned about Washington and Lincoln. I doubt any high school student today could tell you the birthday of either president. By lumping the birthdays of perhaps our greatest presidents into something called Presidents Day, a day which commemorates the great with the un-great, we have lost part of our history.
STEVEN MOSTOFSKY
New York, N.Y.
‘Running Out of Time’
Ms. Furchtgott-Roth’s earnest sentiments about oncology clinical trials do not sufficiently consider our duty to protect patients such as “Dr. Hall” from needless extra pain and suffering and above all from false hope [Oped, “Running out of time,” December 29-31]. Although “scientists have been making new discoveries daily,” new drugs must be fully validated by clinical trials; if not, their effectiveness remains a fantasy. Less than one in five of such new drugs complete initial clinical trials and still fewer get approved. No drug currently exists that convincingly extends survival for even a fraction of pancreatic cancer patients. The currently FDA approved drug, gemcitabine, only improves quality of life, not longevity.
The clinical trial that Dr. Hall was involved in could only have been either a phase I — a determination of toxicity and maximum tolerated dose of drug — or Phase II — determination of efficacy. In neither case is there any evidence that the drug will be more effective than gemcitabine. Medical progress in cancer treatment is dependent upon a patient such as Dr. Hall’s informed willingness to volunteer for testing of drug toxicity and effectiveness. However, he should properly be aware that precisely because a drug is new and not fully tested, it is less likely to be beneficial and that he is giving up the benefit afforded by available, validated treatment. Fueled by often unjustified hope that a drug will be curative simply because it is new, public clamor for immediate “compassionate” access to unapproved drugs can only impede the drug discovery process.
ROBERT TAUB
Attending oncologist
Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons
New York, N.Y.
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, by facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.
