ChatterBank1 min ago
Drug Trial (Again!).
I didn't think it would take long, and I'm not disappointed.......the compensationwallahs have started circling already.
Now, on the assumption there is NO negligence involved here and as these people were paid and without doubt signed a liability waiver, should they be compensated?
I have had a number of injuries over the years on the Rugby field, but from my O Level Law days I seem to recall this is classed as consent (volenti non fit injuria or some other latin cobblers if memory serves): wouldn't the drug tests also fall into this category?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So it is OK to exploit people unethically like so many drug companies do? Maybe the slave trade should never gone because we benefited from exploiting them? Or, Hitler exploited/experiment the Jewish race for his own gain? Human error is an excuse, the actual ethics of these trials shuld be in question.
nikita what are you talking about? have posts been removed or something?
I agree with you, the ethics should be of the utmost importance. unfortunately i think often only lip service is paid to ethics committees by the big companies and anyway it is probably only too easy to hide true facts of trials from ethics committees in order to get approval for studies and exploit patients.
remember that (thank god) there are other organisations in the drugs marketplace. It is not just the profit driven companies. Organisations like the one i work for do independent research funded by charities and the government, we do trials that don't necessarily interest pharma companies because it won't make much difference to their profits, but it is still research that needs to be done and probably end up helping more people. of course non-profit non-commercial bodies are dwarfed by big pharma in terms of size and cash - but usually results from independent bodies and charities are seen as 'better' and more reliable by clinicians because of this independence. Plus just look at the salaries and you know people don't work for them to line their pockets...!
however of course the drugs we look at have been developed by a pharma company somewhere along the line, no-one else has the money to do it.
Sorry, yes I feel passionate about this subject. Those men are someone's brother, father - but who cares?.
It is tragic, that this is not the only case and this continues worldwide - drug companies are heavily protected by certain governing bodies. Yes, I agree, I am glad there are other drug companies who are not profit driven> The love of money is the root of all evil, it seems.
nikita are you not reading the same posts that I am? We all agree with you what a human tragedy it is, but please stop insinuating that you are the only person that cares. No-one is taking it lightly and I resent your implication that I am for one. Nor have I mocked you in anyway and as for turning a "blind eye", I was informing everyone I could manage to speak to about the dangers of ingesting aspartame nearly a decade ago so please stop making assumptions about people you don't know. You are not some lone warrior out to educate the rest of us, nor are we erring children for you to chastise.
Hi All and nikita**, In your post nikita you say someones brother, father etc and then ' who cares?'
We All Do, is the answer, otherwise we would be Mocking...
Nobody is mocking anybody and you have pointed out some very good arguments against unethical drug testing.
I do have a question for you,
What are your alternatives? and your ideas for phase 3 drug tests or will your career go towards unearthing unethical drug companies before they get started?
Please do not take this as offensive, as it is not intended to be, and I reiterate I very much liked your posts on your findings....
When these people agreed to be guinea pigs they had bargained for high blood pressure/headaches and the likes but they had not bargained for what they got. There will always be a need for volunteer human guinea pigs and there should be generous compensation available in situations such as this. After all they were guinea pigs so we did not have to be guinea pigs... and you never know, you might need that drug one day. I have not read the whole thread in depth owing to lack of time but I am aware pharmaceutical companies do not have a spotless record on ethics (understatement of the year); I was aware of Vioxx and there are many more. On the whole I do not have a lot of sympathy for the pharmaceutical companies. Also, I do not buy the "free choice" argument. Hard up students cannot afford to turn down the money. A truly free choice can only be made by someone who does not need the money.
Is your career in a drug company? Is is not obvious that the whole point is how unethical it has become? A dog had died from the drug quiet a few years ago which was not made known to the men. There is a lot of undisclosed information within the drug company without the knowldedge of the participants in this test. They were young and needed the money. The age where common sense is not at the forefront..
Clinical trials should not become a commercial venture in which our interest and desire overrules science, othewise the 'social contract' which allows research on human subjects in return for medical advances is broken.
There should be urgent intervention and thorough examination the highest authority when drug companies ignore these rules and guidelines. So it does not happen again here or anywhere else in the world. It has become such a racket now that the purpose for medical advances has been lost.
Hi nikita**, how did you know a dog had died a couple of years ago but the information was not available to anyone else?
or was this information already in the public domain and the students didn't check the company they were about to work for?
or is it just law students and the like that can delve into information like this via their uni etc?
It was in on the Television news when the TV presenter was interviewing the survivor. They had done some research and posed the question to him. He replied that had he known he would not have done it. He learned the hard way. "Young people these days", huh? No common sense - nothing has changed - you live and you learn. And in this case, missed near death.
Thank you for answering nikita**, I used to put students up whilst they were here doing their various degrees, from language students to law students, from across the world. I found them, on the whole extremely intelligent. Young but learning about life. They really weren't being guided by anyone were they, such a shame.......
