Thread: Bioethics Question

Currently, the treatment for severe cases MRSA infection is intensive IV antibiotic treatment for a number of weeks and then the patient is put on antibiotics for the rest of their life.

To me, this brings up an ethical question:

Since it was the over-use of antibiotics that led to the prevalence MRSA and other "super bugs", how can doctors in good conscience prescribe life-long antibiotics to an ever increasing number of people further contributing to the problem and perpetuating the cycle?

Any thoughts on how we can still save the patient and not perpetuate the creation of super bugs?

Antibiotic resistance generally comes as a result of incomplete antibiotic treatment. If you treat a bacterial infection with antibiotics, and use the full course, no bacteria survive. Thus no resistance can develop. For this reason, the most complete treatments, that kill every bacterium, are the most ethical. They will not cause development of resistance.

I've never seen or heard of life-long anti-biotics for any MRSA infections. Where does this happen?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I've never seen or heard of life-long anti-biotics for any MRSA infections. Where does this happen?

I have to go with your assessment here. It really doesn't make sense to continue with a treatment once the infection has been taken care of. If for some reason it is thought the infection might come back if treatment is stopped, then the infection is not taken care of. If the treatment is not successful, something else will have to be tried or the infection will be back and the anti-biotic will not be of much help, and if nothing helps the patient should be quarantined until death takes him and then quickly put underground or cremated.