Posted on 03/20/2006 5:31:22 AM PST by Born Conservative
A strange tale...this woman is probably much better off.
I would say the lawsuit will set up his family for life..so in a way he got what he bargained for...
Sounds like TGN1412 could be used as a chemical weapon.
"There was some progress in the condition of the other guinea pigs yesterday with three of them being taken off life support machines."
Human life is worth so much in Britain that three
very ill human beings are called guinea pigs.
I don't think so - England has a very different tort system and with socialized medicine - I don't think you can even sue.
Yes, you can sue. But the payouts are not substantial as in tehe USA. Also you can bet he had to sign a waiver when he took the fee.
Well a signed release or not, if this stuff was noted to be nasty, someone should be in trouble....I would never be involved in medical tests but one would think by the time they get to humans these medications are somewhat safer than this one appears to be...
But then again there are some people who think animal testing in wrong...
I'm confused. Are they testing this drug on people who don't have the conditions for which it's a treatment?
I don't see how socialized medicine comes into this. These were healthy volunteers being paid to be test subjects by a private company. If there is proof of negligence on the part of that company or on the part of the drug manufacturer then I should think there is a possibility of them being able to sue for damages.
Under socialized medicine - there are no private medical companies. They all do the bidding of the state as they all are controlled by the state.
This was just a test for safety in humans. Well they got their results.
This drug is a designer drug, which was supposed to cause a large activation in white blood T-cells. It was hoped that the activation would reset the immune system and stop the T-cells from attacking a person's own cells causing arthritis and other auto-immune deseases.
What the drug seems to have done, however, is cause EVERY T-cell in the body to go into massive overdrive attacking everything in sight.
There are other similar drugs which activate specific reponses in a few specialized T-cells. This one turns them ALL on and doesn't give them a specific virus, bacteria, cancer cell etc. to seek out.
The patients may recover, but there will be significant damage done (and there won't be any bacteria or viruses left in them either.)
Drugs like this would make good bio-weapons.
I'm not sure how applicable this is, but when I went to an ethics seminar here a year ago they said in the human trials part of it that the amount of money offered for completion of a trial should be high enough to compensate for the person's time, but not be so high that it would induce someone to ignore the risks because that could violate informed consent. I wonder just what these people were told about the risks and how much more they were offered than in comparable trials. I also wonder how strict these guidelines are in the US and if holding the trial overseas made things simpler for the company.
Confusing to me as well. When I read about it last week, it seemed as though the test subjects were healthy, and not afflicted with the diseases targeted by the medication.
Why should someone be in trouble? Throughout history, researchers HAVE to use human beings in drug trials. If they didn't there would be no polio vaccine or any of the drugs that are used to successfully treat cancer. I think it's scary that this case is getting a lot of attention. Now researchers are put on the defensive - something that will possibly prevent future drug "cure-alls".
A person doesn't need to have the disease if all you're trying to do is determine whether the drug has adverse effects or not. Testing its efficacy would be the next step.
One possible award: peanuts
This doesn't have anything to do with socialized medicine.
This was an American company doing the testing, so I suspect they will have success suing over here.
It sounds like the drug should have been eliminated for consideration in the animal trials. If you do shoddy work in the animal trials and then move on to human trials when there's good reason to expect adverse effects, that's unethical.
You can sue in the UK, but the level of damages awarded are decided by the judge, not by the jurors, so you don't get $9m for spilling hot coffee on your dumb self!
Medicine in the UK is not 'socialized' - we have a national health care system which is free at the point of delivery plus a well-developed private healthcare system for those who wish to spend more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.