Dawes Laura L
21 Clianthus Street, O'Connor, ACT 2602, Australia.
Med Hist. 2013 Apr;57(2):206-25. doi: 10.1017/mdh.2012.103.
In 1948 the New South Wales government instituted an inquiry into the claims of John Braund – a 78-year-old self-described ‘quack’ – that his secret treatment had cured 317 cancer sufferers. The ‘Braund controversy’, as it became known, was one of Australia’s most prominent cases of medical fraud. This paper examines that controversy and its effects on cancer philanthropy, medical research, and especially on legislation regulating treatment providers up to the present. With the Braund controversy in mind, the New South Wales (NSW) parliament struggled to develop legislation that would protect patients and punish quacks but also allow for serendipitous, unorthodox discoveries. Recent decades saw new elements added to this calculus – allowing a wide-ranging health marketplace, and allowing patients to choose their therapies. This paper argues that the particular body of law legislatures used in regulating cancer treatment and how regulations were framed reflected the changing context of healthcare and illustrates the calculus legislatures have undertaken in regulating the health marketplace, variously factoring in public safety, serendipitous discovery, the authority of orthodox medicine, patient choice, and economic opportunity.
1948年，新南威尔士州政府对约翰·布劳德的说法展开调查。这位78岁、自称“江湖郎中”的人宣称，他的秘密疗法治愈了317名癌症患者。后来广为人知的“布劳德争议”，是澳大利亚最著名的医疗欺诈案件之一。本文审视了这一争议及其对癌症慈善事业、医学研究，尤其是对直至目前规范治疗提供者的立法所产生的影响。鉴于布劳德争议，新南威尔士州议会努力制定立法，既要保护患者、惩处江湖郎中，又要允许偶然的、非正统的发现。近几十年来，这一考量中又增添了新的因素——允许存在广泛的健康市场，允许患者选择自己的治疗方法。本文认为，立法机构用于规范癌症治疗的具体法律体系以及法规的制定方式，反映了医疗保健环境的变化，说明了立法机构在规范健康市场时所进行的考量，其中不同程度地纳入了公共安全、偶然发现、正统医学的权威性、患者选择和经济机会等因素。
