Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

[Q]: Paragraph: London’s Metropolitan Police said the company had been charged with seven counts of supplying a medicinal product which was not of the nature or quality specified in the prescription. It was also accused of failing to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that patients were not infected by contaminants. The north London company said in a statement: “As founders of ITH we have every sympathy for all the families affected, regardless of the cause. However, we are disappointed by the decision to charge the company and will vigorously defend this case.”  The police investigation was launched in September 2014 following the death of a baby three months earlier at London’s Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital. The death of a second baby at the same hospital and a third at the Rosie Maternity Hospital in Cambridge, central England, in June 2014 were then also investigated. The inquiry followed an outbreak of a bacterial infection that affected some babies receiving Total Parental Nutrition (TPN), an intravenous feed. The seven babies involved in the investigation, including the three who died, had all received the feed. The investigation established that the cause of death of the first baby could be linked to TPN, although the deaths of the other two were not found to be linked. Five hospitals in total were involved in the investigation, the other three being Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, Luton and Dunstable Hospital and Lister Hospital in Stevenage, all in central England. ITH Pharma, which was founded in 2008, said it had manufactured more than 1.4-million components of TPN since its launch and was the sole commercial supplier of reactive feeding solutions to the National Health Service. “This product has helped thousands of extremely vulnerable infants survive premature and complex births,” it said. The case is due to start at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on Dec. 17. Claim: UK police charge pharmaceutical company over hospital baby deaths.
[A]: Police said on Wednesday they had charged pharmaceutical company ITH Pharma with a number of offences as part of an investigation into the deaths and illnesses of seven babies at several hospitals.


[Q]: Paragraph: After more than three hours of debate, lawmakers in parliament’s upper house voted on Tuesday for a change in the law to allow the treatments, echoing a positive vote in the lower house earlier this month. The treatment, called mitochondrial transfer, is known as “three-parent” in vitro fertilization (IVF) because the babies, born from genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor. Although the techniques are still at the research stage in laboratories in Britain and the United States, experts say that now legal hurdles have been overcome, Britain’s first 3-parent baby could be born as early as 2016. Mitochondrial transfer involves intervening in the fertilization process to remove faulty mitochondrial DNA, which can cause inherited conditions such as heart problems, liver failure, brain disorders, blindness and muscular dystrophy. Mitochondria act as tiny energy-generating batteries inside cells, and around 1 in 6,000 babies around the world are born with serious mitochondrial disorders. Responding to the vote, Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust medical charity commended lawmakers for a “considered and compassionate decision”. “Families who know what it is like to care for a child with a devastating disease are the people best placed to decide whether mitochondrial donation is the right option,” he said. Mark Downs, chief executive of the Society of Biology, hailed “a great day for UK science” and said the landmark decision “will ensure mothers who carry faulty mitochondria can have healthy children free from the devastating conditions.”  But Marcy Darnovsky, director of the campaign group The Center for Genetics and Society, called the move a “historic mistake” which turns children into biological experiments and will “forever alter the human germline”. “The techniques ... are relatively crude and will not in and of themselves create so-called designer babies,” she said. “However, they will result in children with DNA from three different people in every cell of their bodies, which will impact a large range of traits in unknowable ways and introduce genetic changes that will be passed down to future generations.” Claim: Britain becomes first nation to legalize three-parent babies.
[A]: - Britain will become the first nation to legalize a “three-parent” IVF technique which doctors say can prevent some inherited incurable diseases but which critics fear will effectively lead to “designer babies”.


[Q]: Paragraph: "The story indicated that the robotic procedure was more expensive than a standard surgical prostatectomy. In addition, it included information about the expenses associated with obtaining and running the equipment. It is not clear from this story what, if any, the benefits are of having a robotic prostatectomy instead of a standard surgical prostatectomy. There was no discussion about the decreased hospital stay or reduced recovery time that has been reported with this approach. Although these are short term benefits, they may be of interest to certain patients. In this sense, the story was the flip side of what we often see – exaggerated benefts and no mention of harms. This story mentions harms (although data comes from biased literature review) and no benefits. The story provides readers with some potentially interesting questions to raise with a doctor (e.g. how many of these surgeries have you done using this equipment; is this approach the best for the type of cancer I have, i.e. early or more advanced). The story mentions in passing potential harms such as impotence and incontinence, referencing a study published in October. However – the story did not really follow-up on one of the key issues it raised. For example, the story mentioned that a surgeon will have to do 80 procedures with this equipment to ensure that they don’t leave any cancerous tissue behind. The story could have completed this thought and indicated the ramifications of leaving cancerous tissue behind in terms of health consequences. The story indicated that the publication reported on examined data from a number of previously published reports. The story then extracted several salient facts to highlight some variables that affect outcomes of interest to patients. The story would have been improved by noting the weaknesses or biases associated with a simple literature review. This is not a systematic review of the literature or a meta-analysis. This is simply a literature review and the methods are flawed — for example, the authors chose 68 papers of 412 on basis of selection/inclusion criterion ""…those with greatest relevance to the paper."" The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. It might have been useful to note that not all prostate cancers result in morbidity or mortality meaning that not all prostate need active treatment. The story does not use any comments from experts in the field without a direct connection to the study reported on. The story mentioned that the authors of the study reported on did not compare robotic surgery complication rates to traditional surgery rates. In a perfect world, we would have hoped that the story would have investigated these data points anyway. The story mentioned that robotic prostatectomy was the ‘dominant approach’ to this procedure in the United States. But that is an erroneous statement by the physician who is from Australia. It is certainly booming in popularity, but that doesn’t make it the dominant approach. The story indicated that robotic prostatectomy is not a new procedure. Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press release." Claim: Robot prostate surgery has downsides, needs more data
[A]:
This is a story about a study examining the costs, harms and the impact of doctor experience associated with the use of robotic prostatectomy. The story raised some important issues that are not ordinarily broached during patient – doctor conversations. While raising some potential red flags with respect to doctor experience, the story failed to critically examine what, if any, benefit there might be to this particular surgical approach. While it is valuable to know that after completing 80 procedures of this type, a surgeon is no longer apt to leave cancerous tissue behind, it is also important to know if there is any value added by having this more expensive procedure. The story does serve as an important reminder to consumers that more modern sounding approaches do not necessarily offer the patient a less problem plagued experience. This story is provides an example for consumers to consider about the value in knowing about both the benefits as well as the harms associated with whatever treatment option they are considering. Further – the story raises the point that newer or seemingly more sophisticated treatments are not always superior to lower-tech options.