Should HT Surgeons Have the Ethical Obligation to Pursue Hairloss Research?

[trynagetaHT]

I'm curious if doctors should have the ethical obligation to pursue hairloss research. Unlike most other conditions, androgenic alopecia is the one rare condition that affects so many people but isn't classified as a "disease" because of its cosmetic impact (even though conditions like acne or malocclusion are). Therefore, it receives almost no funding via government grants or via companies because it's not covered by insurance.

Dr. Barghouthi is graciously undergoing research currently and being extremely public about it, despite the research not making him any money. I feel like if all doctors were to put in a couple hours a week, be it doing research or trialing FDA approved drugs off-label, like the new one Follicle Thought just wrote about, we'd find much better treatments in just a couple of years.

[HappyMan2021]

There is no ethical or moral obligation for HT doctors to pursue research. But any doctor worth going to will naturally be doing research and furthering the industry. 

Be careful though, its really not as black and white as you think. Some doctors go to a ton of conferences and industry events but are still bad surgeons. 

 

[trynagetaHT]

9 hours ago, HappyMan2021 said:

There is no ethical or moral obligation for HT doctors to pursue research. But any doctor worth going to will naturally be doing research and furthering the industry. 

Be careful though, its really not as black and white as you think. Some doctors go to a ton of conferences and industry events but are still bad surgeons. 

 

A lot of surgeons claim to be doing research, but I haven't actually seen the tangible results of their research.

[deeznuts]

I think surgery and research are way different from each other. But maybe I'm wrong.

A surgeon more or less just cuts holes in your scalp (or creates them with an implanter pen), administers drugs like local anesthesia, and follows various surgical protocols. It's vary much a craft like making the perfect pair of leather shoes or building artisanal furniture. 

A researcher on the other hand deals a lot with chemicals, receptors, DHT, proteins, DNA and whatever else. I feel like it's so different just because asking a surgeon to do research is like asking a chef about the maillard reaction. Or a food scientist to cook a 3 star michelin meal. 

That's not to say you can't be an excellent researcher and surgeon, but being good at implanting hair in an aesthetic manner is a lot different from finding the genes that is responsible for hair loss

[Bb111]

All physicians are trained on how to perform basic research in medical school. They are also taught  how to interpret and critique research so that they can apply it to their clinical care. However most physicians (outside of physicians who work in academic medical center or physicians who with large pharmaceutical companies/biotech companies) do not conduct research. Physicians have the obligation to know and understand the latest research not to participate in it directly.

Also research is not something you can do for a couple of hours a week. It requires full on dedication and focus.  Basically you can't be a researcher on the side, you would be wasting your own time and everyone else's resources. The big researchers in the academic medical centers basically have minimal clinical responsibilities for this reason. 

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Bb111

[NARMAK]

I agree with HappyMan2021 that Hair Transplant doctors are under no ethical or moral obligation to fo this extra research. Their primary field of expertise is hair transplants and the research they usually do or make observational findings for are how to improve the existing techniques and that's how we ended up with innovations such as motorised punches, custom designs and sizes as well as the guides of angulation and placement. Usually some doctors even share these with the other hair transplant doctors too. 

Scientists are usually hired by pharmaceutical companies to undertake this paid for research so they can monetise it with products and sell them. Its how its always worked and their motives aren't so altruistic. 

If any person was to stumble upon the cure for hair loss or hell, let's say cancer, you probably wouldn't be getting the Nobel Peace Prize, you'd be sued to hell by Pharmaceutical companies who would try their best to litigate you to either submit or until you did worse and they could own what you created. We like to think we live in really great egalitarian societies with laws that protect us until you get on the wrong side of these corrupt systems we live in. 

You would think the person that found that cure could help the world and make some money, but they're actually products that would generate hundreds of billions and give trillions in income to a pharmaceutical company that could own it. Your life isn't worth that much to them.

[trynagetaHT]

Ideally, we'd have a plethora of researchers working in this space. However, unlike most other medical conditions, androgenic alopecia has very little funding, so researchers don't have the money they need to conduct research. This is why I ask if HT surgeons, who actually have money for this, should step up.

[NARMAK]

4 minutes ago, trynagetaHT said:

Ideally, we'd have a plethora of researchers working in this space. However, unlike most other medical conditions, androgenic alopecia has very little funding, so researchers don't have the money they need to conduct research. This is why I ask if HT surgeons, who actually have money for this, should step up.

No, they shouldn't and they have no obligation to do so. 

The hair transplant doctors are not scientists and they do not research the mechanism of hair loss. Their specialty is in taking hair from one part of the body and putting it somewhere else and making sure they try and make it all survive as much as possible. 

What you're saying is the equivalent of asking cosmetic surgeons who make a ton from boob jobs to research breast cancer cures. It's ludicrous.

[trynagetaHT]

Seems that we fundamentally disagree, but you're not understanding the crux of the issue. In an ideal world, we'd have researchers working on this. But, as I've said multiple times, since hairloss is considered to be a cosmetic condition, the government doesn't give many grants nor does it mandate insurers to cover this. Therefore, scientists don't have the funds to pursue research.

Therefore, in this imperfect world, the next best choice are hair transplant doctors. And hair loss doctors understand the mechanism of hair loss a lot better than you think -- without a good understanding, they wouldn't be able to prescribe meds. 

3 hours ago, NARMAK said:

No, they shouldn't and they have no obligation to do so. 

The hair transplant doctors are not scientists and they do not research the mechanism of hair loss. Their specialty is in taking hair from one part of the body and putting it somewhere else and making sure they try and make it all survive as much as possible. 

What you're saying is the equivalent of asking cosmetic surgeons who make a ton from boob jobs to research breast cancer cures. It's ludicrous.

 

[NARMAK]

2 minutes ago, trynagetaHT said:

Seems that we fundamentally disagree, but you're not understanding the crux of the issue. In an ideal world, we'd have researchers working on this. But, as I've said multiple times, since hairloss is considered to be a cosmetic condition, the government doesn't give many grants nor does it mandate insurers to cover this. Therefore, scientists don't have the funds to pursue research.

Therefore, in this imperfect world, the next best choice are hair transplant doctors. And hair loss doctors understand the mechanism of hair loss a lot better than you think -- without a good understanding, they wouldn't be able to prescribe meds. 

 

I understand the mechanisms of hair loss because of the research that's come about from people specifically focused on it during research. That doesn't mean though that because of having a certain understanding  that it qualifies you to undertake the much more rigorous testing that you would need for hair loss research 

At best, they could potentially like how Pharmaceutical companies do  try to fund promising research but its a market driven issue, yet despite all the money in the world spent so far, we still don't get a cure towards even things like cancer where more resources are devoted. 

I'd honestly say that given the potential to make money from such a "cure" or product, Pharmaceutical companies would love to find that next big product and patent it. Would make them very rich and probably are actively looking but they aren't publicly disclosing it. 

[Legend007]

Of course not . Why would they want to lose future clients by eliminating baldness ..  it would make no sense…  If baldness was eliminated they have to sell their clinics n start working in skincare or something .. 

hairtranspltants makes them so much money .. it’s logical they want to keep us bald or do nothing about it .. 

[Vann]

Depends on your personal stance and where you live I think. 

i would say yes and no. 
 

Yes because if you’re a doctor of any kind, does any scientific research, continuous improvement, or further enhancing research; should be your ultimate goal. If you’re a practicing medical doctor you should enhance your skills in any capacity that it benefits said patient without causing any further undue harm. 
 

ex: any surgery you do always causes damage to one’s body. There are methods where you can take to limit said damage but you still cause damage. (Some things like Narcotics, anesthesia, of course surgically cutting into skin, etc.) for example arthroscopic surgeries vs more invasive surgeries.

No, because if you live in a corporate world you will never gain financially to support said goals. I know vaccinations can sometimes take awhile and sometimes to reap that benefit they charge higher prices. However, those prices do not always go down (I won’t get into this fully) but it’s easier to make temporary gag measures or remedies to alleviate said symptoms. But if there are other markets where people fully support all research (whether it’s ethical or not in some regions) could depend on that person(s) themselves.  
 

however, there are times when doing research can cause more harm in some areas because of unintended results that become skewed due to financial, political, or some outside gain that wasn’t warranted to true scientific measures. Ex: stem cel research

 

there are many uses of autologous research that has proven to enhance our body’s capacity to regrow cells that don’t grow post puberty by causing damage to surrounding cells and cultivating cells to promote cell proliferation in the surrounding tissue. But without proper “government” or ethical backing this can be called unethical. So sometimes it’s best not to shoot yourself in the foot if you live in specific regions. 

[Vann]

Also to add I wouldn’t trust a doctor who makes most of their living doing surgeries to magically create something to cure your disease. Sometimes it could be 100% safe but it’s very skeptical to me in some regards because they lose most of their living post remedy (sometimes). 

[Legend007]

Okay let’s say this ,, even if they do some research on the side while making $20k+ a day on doing hair transplants.. they will need to discover something , then pay money to have it proven ,, then pay more money for tests that will take years .. n In the end ,, they not making the money from the research .. the pharmaceutical companies n large corporations are the ones that makes the money .. 

i don’t see the person that invented FUe or fut getting any residuals from their discovery.   
someone will just copycat their work n use it as their own n make some slight adjustments n call it something else ..