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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Whats more your experimentation has been beneficial to others - judging by your regard in the drugs forum. :thumb:
But as for the British case, if it was informed consent (which as far as I know it was) then I agree with Kermit. If they were mis-lead about the risks then that's another matter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4744432.stm
Clinical trial patients may mistakenly believe they would be compensated for accidental harm because of badly worded contracts, a senior doctor has warned.
University of London Professor Desmond Laurence told the British Medical Journal that injury pay-out decisions were at the trial sponsor's discretion.
The government, which vets contracts, said patients are told the full risks.
There have been reports of heart problems and damage to blood cells after adverse reactions to drugs.
Prof Laurence said patients who took part in trials deserved to have the consumer contracts adequately explained to them. as they are doing society a service.
But he said documents were not written in plain language, and therefore did not meet the legal requirement of fairness and openness under consumer law.
In his letter to the BMJ, he cited the wording of the government-agreed statement: "[The sponsor] will pay compensation for [non-negligent harm]. Any payment would be without legal commitment."
He said the certainty of the first sentence was undone by the "legal jiggery-pokery" of the second.
"If the law were to be observed, patients would be told frankly, in words lay people could readily understand, that they might be seriously injured but with merely discretionary compensation.
"The trial sponsor of course may always pay ex-gratia compensation, if it cares to.
"But if it does not, then the cost of compensation for non-negligent harm falls up on the injured patients themselves."
He acknowledged that if it was spelt out clearly to people they were not entitled to compensation, the numbers volunteering for trials might drop.
But he added the answer then would be to introduce "more humane compensation arrangements".
Louise Hunt, a partner at Alexander Harris solicitors, which specialises in medical cases, said patients had a right to know what their rights were when volunteering for trials.
"The issues Prof Laurence raises are very worrying. Patients should have things fully explained to them and it is naive of the government and trial sponsors to think they do not have to do this.
"It sounds like it is very confusing for patients, I think they should be entitled to compensation."
But a Department of Health spokeswoman said: "We do not agree with Prof Laurence that patients are being misled.
"People take part in clinical trials with consent, after seeing information about the risks.
"It is a key part of the job of an ethics committee to examine carefully the information that goes to patients and others to make sure they know about the risks and the kind of compensation available before they consent to take part."
If it isn't negligent the company doesn't have to legally pay a penny; they will do, though, for publicity and ethical reasons.
Of course the people should get some money, I should clarify that, but the point is they're not legally entitled to anything, and the company were not negligent. You cannot sign up to something with risks and then moan that its someone else's fault when you get bitten on the bum.
But surely only a doctor (scientist, or someone of equivalent medical knowledge) would have the ability to understand the risks of such experiments, and therefore make an 'informed decision' to take part.
Thus it is not a matter of simply knowing that 'there are risks involved,' it is a matter of understanding the nature and extent of those risks. By your logic informing someone that 'there are risks involved' gives a carte blanche to do whatever you like to them.
To use a bad (but illustrative) analogy: I enter a casino, walk up to a roulette table and place a £10 bet on red. The ball lands on black. Security drag me outside, kick the hell out of me, take all my money and my car. "Sorry mate - you knew there were risks involved, now piss off and stop moaning."
A risk, however miniscule, of taking any medication is an adverse reaction causing death. That should be made absolutely clear to anyone who subjects themselves voluntarily to medical research, but that risk should also be put into context and the fact that this is the first such catastrophic adverse drug reaction for decades should be borne in mind.
And, by the way, it doesn't matter if they spend the money on a holiday or their tuition fees - they were paid to take an experimental drug and paid handsomely. If you want to remove the risk from the experiments, you remove the need to pay the volunteers vast sums of money for their time.
there is actually a small but very signifigant risk of the treatment they were given, killing you
they werent not told that the possible side effect is life threatening, end of
Thats not true - a cursory search led me to:
"A woman developed mental health problems and later died after taking part in trials of a cannabis-based drug, an inquest has heard.
Diabetic Rene Anderson, aged 69 from Sheffield, was taken to hospital after starting to take Sativex to see if it would relieve pain she was suffering. She died in March 2004 from acute kidney failure."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4522108.stm
This is precisely the point - very few people actually want to volunteer for medical research. That is why they are paid, and why affluent people do not take part in them. But they are necessary in order to produce new drugs, which should (ostensibly) benefit the rest of humanity. It is therefore in everybody's interest that volunteers continue to come forward. Dismissing those who have experienced the worst results of these experiments as "moaners" and fobbing them off with token sums of money is going to decrease the numbers willing to take part in these experiments. So you have two options:
1) Put safeguards in place to ensure that when things do go wrong, victims are adequately treated, compensated, and minimise their impact on the numbers of subsequent volunteers. A miniscule portion of the huge profits of the pharmaceutical companies would easily provide this.
2) Rely on the fact that many people are so desperate for money that they are willing to take huge gambles with their health, their employability, and their lives. Let them 'choose' to gamble (for our benefit) and tell them to shut the fuck up when something goes wrong. This is called exploitation.
You could argue that some subjects developing a moderate reaction, or maybe one of them a severe allergic reaction to the drugs was covered in the terms of the contract.
Every single subject suffering ultra violent, life threatening reactions that included heads ballooning up to 3 times their normal size, people being in a coma for potentially 1 year and folks losing their fingers and toes are clearly outside the expected risks and side effects. One person experiencing them, you could argue he had a particular allergic sensitivity to it. Most or all of them doing it is something else altogether and indicates a fuck up.
As such the company should compensate, and compensate handsomely at that.
Those of you complaining about 'compensation culture' should stop and reflect on the facts that drug companies are multi-million pound operations and can certainly fucking afford a lot more than 10k per victim without even noticing it. It's not the boardroom directors who are putting their lives on the line here.
Yes, it is slightly different, but it still illustrates what is essentially the same dilemma, and also proves your previous assertion false.
Maybe thats because you aren't facing the prospect of your fingers and toes falling off.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4914546.stm
All of those things: it is compensation. Money to try and minimize the pain/irritation/general disadvantages of an event.
No, it shows that it is a practical proposition.
I am simply arguing for some honesty on this issue: we rely on these people taking risks in order to develop and distribute drugs that can save lives, and make others more bearable. Since there is an inherent risk in these trials it is necessary to pay people (who would not otherwise be inclined) to participate. If you want people to continue to participate you have the two options I previously outlined. Personally, I consider the first to be more desirable (whilst not perfect) and potentially effective.
And you'll have to take my word for it that this trial was unprecedented in the effects it on the participants.
Specific effects, yes: and I don't have to take your word for it as my father is a journalist specializing in the medical industry and has been researching this story for some time. That there is no specific precedent is precisely why it is important this problem be discussed properly and without simply dismissing its victims as "moaners" who knew full well what they were in for when they signed up.
I don't see how compensation based on suffering is illogical - if it is significant and verifiable (as the victims in this case) then it would mitigate this disincentive to potential volunteers, and provide an incentive for pharmaceuticals to fully scrutinize each compound they intend to trial. Clearly minor discomfort or temporary and impermanent side effects go with the territory here. But surely those who suffer severe or permanent side effects should be generously compensated for their suffering. If an adverse precedent were set the drugs companies - what are fundamentally profit-driven, bureaucratic organizations - would push it as far as it would go, and probably beyond. Only the desperate would volunteer for such testing. Personally I do not wish to live in such a society, or rely upon products of such a process.
If you are comfortable with this, be it upon your conscience. Perhaps you can offer a solution involving prisoners or participants randomly conscripted from the population when the volunteers dry up or. Or alternatively you could step up yourself and volunteer - I'd assume you would accept a simple apology if something went wrong.
How else do you suggest drugs are developed if not for profit?
im not a medical expert, i saw the form they signed, and it mentions the risk of the problem they had in medical terms, it doesnt say this is life threatening
in terms of risk for the 1st part, i mean there is more than no risk, but not that big risk - it's like a vaccine what was being tested, so the cahcnes of a full blown immune response are signifigant, but not large enough to not do human trials, they should just be informed so they can consent
Personally I would advocate an entirely non-profit driven society - but since I am arguing against those who (I assume) would not be immediately persuaded to accept this as a premise, I am satisfied to argue a more moderate stance: that the worst consequences of such a paradigm be minimized by legislation based on the argument I suggested. If not, perhaps refusal of volunteers to participate would hopefully force the pharmaceuticals to take a more ethical stance towards this process. The latter I realise is unrealistic, since I imagine that too many volunteers are too desperate for the money for a boycott or strike to be effective, and organization of such a fragmented group of people is unrealistic.
That interest in participation in drugs trials has increased in the immediate afermath of this story is unsuprising: it is an obscure enough process that coverage in the national media is bound to increase awareness of the potential financial benefits involved, and therefore further participation - particularly amongst the uncritical and ill-informed (it is noticeable the weight the red-tops have given to this story).
well there isa prevalent risk
and im not the one giving professional advice to patients and i dont know the exact figure, to my knowledge the chance of this side effect occuring isnt really low like 1 in a million, but it isnt like 10% either as it wouldnt get to human trials at that point
and it is danger money for a reason, i was considering going in for volunterring on testing typhoid vaccines, but i have exams to revise for and thus the minor illness as a side effect i wasnt prepared to take
you are either prepared to accept the risk or you arent in these kind of things, but you should be told honestly the risks involved, if you arent made aware that one of the possible side effects can kill you by just mentioning the medical term in the consent form, then imo you deserve compensation
No, the value of a human life cannot be quantified. However there is common sense and common decency that tells us all what might be an appropriate compensation, and what isn't.
10k is a fucking pisstake. Especially from a company that could afford many, many times more.
50k for the less serious cases, 100k+ for anyone who's lost fingers/toes or is going to be ill/incapacitated for several months, raising to 1-2m to anyone who suffers permanent disability/brain damage.
That is not my main point, hence:
Your only question was:
My reply was:
If you ask a broad question, expect a broad reply. That is given in the first 30 words. The remaining 60 are discussing the debatable aspects of the story that you refer to. Your other point was:
My response was: