If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Drug Trial Men given £10k
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4951624.stm
Anyone else think this is rubbish or is that just me? So, if the company has this £2m insurance (I think that's what the article said) why don't they get alot more than what they're already getting? Or is putting these men's life in danger worth just £10k?
And for anyone interested, there's a document on BBC at 9pm about this.
Anyone else think this is rubbish or is that just me? So, if the company has this £2m insurance (I think that's what the article said) why don't they get alot more than what they're already getting? Or is putting these men's life in danger worth just £10k?
And for anyone interested, there's a document on BBC at 9pm about this.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Isn't there more testing done before the drug is passed on to the test subjects?
Do they deserve much more, I don't think so. They knew the risks.
This is true, but how many expect/expected their organs to fail?
They took a risk to make money fast, they knew what they were doing, the drugs company weren't negligent, why should they get paid when the risk they took backfired?
You make your bed and you lie in it.
But back to the point, adults who have given informed consent - unless the information given them was misleading somehow, but I'm sure it will have contained a clause somewhere saying "I'm prepared to die for your drug test" (obvious paraphrase mine!).
No they didn't. They signed a waiver about ANY side-effects from testing what was an experimental drug.
The drugs were properly tested using both computer simulations and laboratory animals according to all accredited standards, actually.
Accidents will happen, and if you decide to make a quick buck pumping yourself full of experiemental chemicals then you have to be prepared for something to go wrong.
Unless they can prove that the company were negligent and make it stick- and I don't think they will manage when the thalidomide victims couldn't- then they aren't entitled to a penny of compensation.
They've been paid out, and I would expect that they would receive more because of what happened. That's right.
I don't think it was greed either, I think it was a way of making a bit of quick money to pay for a holiday or something, but they did take the risk and it is infuriating to listen to them turn around and say that its all someone else's fault.
If the company were negligent then they should be forced to pay out vast compensation as punishment, but if they weren't then, well, them's the risks you take.
Fairnuf, that sounds about right.
I guess you do have a fair point.
Indeed.
Just wondering, but how much money were these men paid to be involvoed in these trials?
AFAIK they were paid about two grand each for a week's test.
the company didnt tell them one of the possible side effects could easily kill anyone........
i saw a photo of the form they signed - not many drug trials can result in death, these ones can and they weren't told, so they assumed like most drug trials that you may suffer a couple of annoying side effects, but you wont lose your limbs or life
But the companies aren't to know what side effects that people will have. And everyone will react differently as well.
The drug companies do negate the risks, of course they do, and they do use medical terms, but hey, it is a medical experiment.
They were told there was no serious dangers.
They were lied to.
They have a right to more then £10k for nearly dying.
And since you Kermit like to attach blame all over the place all the time, you shouldnt be so quick to whinge and whine about blame culture.
Frankly, choosing to believe evidence when it is to do with things you agree with such as hating the USA for Torturing prisoners but ignore it when it is to with things you disagree with like claiming compensation for nearly dying is very hypocritical!
actually this form of treatment, it's possible side effects are well known, it's not like testing a retroviral drug which has very unknown effects most of the time
Nope. They got paid for a job, took the risk and it went wrong.
if you werent informed of the possible risks it'd be wrong
No company would be that categoric, its just asking for a lawsuit.
They will have been told about likely side effects, but that others may occur. They will have been told its unlikely to have any serious danger, as the drug had been fully tested according to correct procedure. No company in that field would make guarantees because guarantees = lawsuits.
The whole point of signing the waiver is that you waive your right to sue if things go wrong. No company with a lawyer with half a brain would restrict that any more than they have to.
Now what are you on about?
There is categoric proof of the US' torture.
I've explained why I don't believe the waiver that has been released. No lawyer with half a brain would restrict things like that, that's why every legal document you care to read is full of ifs, buts and maybes. Lawyers try to leave things as open as possible in order to protect themselves and their clients from lawsuits, that is their job.
If that waiver document is genuine then if I was the medical company I would be wiping the floor with the lawyers who drafted that document.
I think the people should receive some compensation, and I expect it to be higher than £10,000 in the end, but the point is that they are not entitled to it, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.
There is catagorical proof here they were lied to, you have seen the evidence, you claim anyway, and you said you dont believe it. Well, unless you have been to Guantanamo in person to witness first hand the torture, you are merely believe evidence you have seen. Just like in this case, as everyone else is.
They won't though, not unless the company was negligent.
The whole point of signing the waiver and consent form is to prevent the company being liable for side-effects, forseen and unforseen. That is the whole point of the document. Drug testers sign away their rights to sue.
The document will have said that there may, as an outside risk of some danger, but that this is unlikely. That is correct, it is a slight risk, and these men got unlucky.
If the documents shown are genuine then I feel the drug testing companies would have a good chance of screwing their lawyers for negligence, to be quite honest. There's a very good reason you cannot ever get a straight answer out of a lawyer.
Well its very generous of you to make such an assumption - based on what? I've noticed you indulge in a lot of speculation which often forms the premises of your opinions and arguments.
So far all I've discovered on this is:
"Mr Wilson, a student from Highbury in north London, and the most seriously affected of the six, is likely to receive most of the legal damages."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4951624.stm
He may well have been trying to "make a bit of quick money to pay for a holiday," but having been a student myself I would have thought it more probable that he was trying to fund his education. As for the others - who knows? For all you know they could have been made redundant and having to support a family, or any other misfortune for that matter.
You think thats the best way to go about it? The pharmaceutical industry - the most profitable on the planet - relies on volunteers to test their drugs. Why not provide some kind of a safeguard so as not to completely dissuade volunteers?
Of course the problem is that many people are so desperate for money that they have to take the risk. If it relied on genuine choice, who the fuck would volunteer if they knew that their fingers and toes might fall off, given 10K and told to piss off?
Maybe the pharaceuticals should give the "choice" of testing unexamined, high-risk drugs to Bangladeshi orphans or residents of Somalia? After all, they'd "know the risks" and take their choice - fuck them if their eyes fall out. :yeees: