[2banana]

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.

[elc]

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.

[cokecan]

you very obviously know very little about healthcare in the UK. private health companies exist in the UK and very profitable they are too. pretty much any medical procedure carried out by the NHS can be done privately - cancer care, orthopedic work, anti-natal, childbirth, heart surgery - you name it.

if you wish to look a fool then carry on, otherwise read up on your subject before commenting.

the drug was tested for the first time on humans by giving it to healthy adult males. if there were to be side effects probably better to find out what those side effects might be before discovering them in the treatment of a critically ill four year old with lukemia.

[moatilliatta]

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.

You are factually incorrect. Private medical and pharmaceutical companies operate in the UK. Many are publicly listed at the London stock exchange. This case only has a tangential connection to socialised helathcare.