Hooman Noorchashm
Jul 30, 2017 · 1 min read

There are several logical errors in this response. Certainly the reader has not read the point-by-point critique of the clinical trial’s ethical impossibility. Nor does she seem to be well versed in the details of how the surgically incorrect practice of morcellation harms and kills women.

The notion that she equates morcellation with minimally invasive surgery is also telling of her limited understanding of either process. But this is a common tactic used by minimally invasive GYNs and their societies in promoting the idea of morcellation. But the fact is that morcellation not minimally invasive surgery — it is, instead, maximally invasive surgery through small skin incisions. And it represents 100% corruption of a basic surgical tenet: That no tumor with malignant potential ought be disrupted inside a patient’s body cavity.

Finally, to be clear the idea that the UNC IRB is infallible is simply silly. The IRB are political and susceptible entities at most institutions that hare highly susceptible to internal bias and misinformation.

In term’s of the reader’s implication that somehow the personal tragedy my family has experienced taints my opinion, it is important to consider that history has demonstrated that those personally affected by errors and atrocities are often best positioned to see the harm done with full clarity. I will assure this reader that in the anti-morcellation public health initiative, Dr. Amy Reed and I brought a very personal perspective that was grounded in undeniable science and ethical principles.

    Hooman Noorchashm

    Written by

    Hooman Noorchashm MD, PhD is a physician-scientist. He is an advocate for ethics, patient safety and women’s health. He and his 6 children live in Pennsylvania.