The title is highly unfair towards the Company. They have a good argument here not to do it. While this case may be heartbreaking, but let's be honest: he's not the only one. And that means that if the company helps this boy and others like him now, they'll kill others, very likely a lot more, by diverting resources to these patients. While the parents are very effective at harnessing the media and online communities, what they're effectively doing is killing an X amount of children because they want theirs to live.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Intersting ethical delima between, capitalism, regulation and an indivudals life. .
Aside from the points listed in the article (diversion of resources), let's say the kid gets the drug and dies. Drug doesn't push through approval due to statistical skew. How many OTHER people will now die?
And bold part is important. Do you _really_ want less regulation for drug companies? Let's say the child is given the drug and dies anyway. Do you want the FDA to go, "Eh, that's just a statistical anomaly; them the breaks. You can still make this drug and market it!"
As the situation sits, I'm on the drug companies side.
With that said, I do not understand why this has to be an either/or situation. A person on his death bed who has long odd's of survial anyways should be affored the ability to try what ever drugs they want with out impacting a companies future. I think if you install legal requirments for full discloure and release of liabilty from the drug in questions producer, a doctors approval, and oversight that this process is not being abused but also does not impact the future research and progress of a experimental drug that should be enough....the dying person is not a test case and should not be treated like one.
This should not be a matter of regulation preventing a dying person from getting a drug.
So every one wins. Great. Except that this is not a wonder treatment, and if (or when, depending on how cynical you are) that poor kid dies, the media will still come down really hard on Chimerix.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I would assume it's that newspapers started publishing headlines saying "Company denies drug to dying child," and the company wanted to avoid a negative PR campaign against them.
As the situation sits, I'm on the drug companies side.
With that said, I do not understand why this has to be an either/or situation. A person on his death bed who has long odd's of survial anyways should be affored the ability to try what ever drugs they want with out impacting a companies future. I think if you install legal requirments for full discloure and release of liabilty from the drug in questions producer, a doctors approval, and oversight that this process is not being abused but also does not impact the future research and progress of a experimental drug that should be enough....the dying person is not a test case and should not be treated like one.
This should not be a matter of regulation preventing a dying person from getting a drug.
The hard thing is that when you're studying a drug - if you just exclude a patient from the study, what happens if they have a rare reaction to the drug or a rare interaction with something else? You can't just opt them back into the study after discovering that you're getting genuinely important information from them, so now you have data that you know about but can't use, which could be a nightmare if it would push them over a point where the drug might get additional labeling or additional guidelines/rules/restrictions but they don't because it gets excluded and someone gets the drug who wouldn't have if that kid was part of the study. How do you deal with that?
On the flip side, you don't have any less information than you would have had if you didn't give the drug to that dying person, so this hardly seems like it should stand in the way if there's some hope that the drug could cure them and they're out of proven options.
As the situation sits, I'm on the drug companies side.
With that said, I do not understand why this has to be an either/or situation. A person on his death bed who has long odd's of survial anyways should be affored the ability to try what ever drugs they want with out impacting a companies future. I think if you install legal requirments for full discloure and release of liabilty from the drug in questions producer, a doctors approval, and oversight that this process is not being abused but also does not impact the future research and progress of a experimental drug that should be enough....the dying person is not a test case and should not be treated like one.
How would giving out the drugs *not* impact the company's future? We're talking $500,000 per patient, right?
Quote from LordOwlingtonIII »
Wouldn't be a problem if we had single-payer.
Does single payer mean that you can find millions of dollars in your pocket whenever you want?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/health/cohen-josh/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
The cliff's is that providing the experimental drug could impact future regulatory approval and the fact its a small company (50 employees).
Intersting ethical delima between, capitalism, regulation and an indivudals life. .
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Aside from the points listed in the article (diversion of resources), let's say the kid gets the drug and dies. Drug doesn't push through approval due to statistical skew. How many OTHER people will now die?
And bold part is important. Do you _really_ want less regulation for drug companies? Let's say the child is given the drug and dies anyway. Do you want the FDA to go, "Eh, that's just a statistical anomaly; them the breaks. You can still make this drug and market it!"
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
With that said, I do not understand why this has to be an either/or situation. A person on his death bed who has long odd's of survial anyways should be affored the ability to try what ever drugs they want with out impacting a companies future. I think if you install legal requirments for full discloure and release of liabilty from the drug in questions producer, a doctors approval, and oversight that this process is not being abused but also does not impact the future research and progress of a experimental drug that should be enough....the dying person is not a test case and should not be treated like one.
This should not be a matter of regulation preventing a dying person from getting a drug.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Drug company will give ailing 7-year-old medicine that could save him
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/11/health/josh-hardy-drug-study/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It makes the company out as bad guys when they're denying the drug for perfectly legitimate reasons.
Shame on CNN for allowing an obviously exploitative piece to be published.
Shame also on the countless internet warriors who mindlessly blame people without even taking the care to understand the issue at heart.
And, sort of unrelated, **** change.org. Might as well be renamed to "mobs r us!"
I would assume it's that newspapers started publishing headlines saying "Company denies drug to dying child," and the company wanted to avoid a negative PR campaign against them.
The hard thing is that when you're studying a drug - if you just exclude a patient from the study, what happens if they have a rare reaction to the drug or a rare interaction with something else? You can't just opt them back into the study after discovering that you're getting genuinely important information from them, so now you have data that you know about but can't use, which could be a nightmare if it would push them over a point where the drug might get additional labeling or additional guidelines/rules/restrictions but they don't because it gets excluded and someone gets the drug who wouldn't have if that kid was part of the study. How do you deal with that?
On the flip side, you don't have any less information than you would have had if you didn't give the drug to that dying person, so this hardly seems like it should stand in the way if there's some hope that the drug could cure them and they're out of proven options.
How would giving out the drugs *not* impact the company's future? We're talking $500,000 per patient, right?
Does single payer mean that you can find millions of dollars in your pocket whenever you want?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I'd rather not put a price on human life, but if you insist I suppose we COULD have price controls.