Would you save a dying kid?

Ya, bad situation.

I do find it odd they didn't give it for free at the onset since it is "experimental" and would give them great data I would think.

But I don't know the first thing that goes into those types of decisions.

Hugo is right, shite like this happens thousands of times everyday

Posted this on the PT the other day:

1."What if a neighbor (with modest income and no real savings) has a sick child who needs $50,000 for surgery, and the neighbor knows that I have cash in my safe at home? Would it be OK for him to rob me at gunpoint, taking my money because it’s to save a child?"

2. "What if the neighbor takes a vote of the people living on the block and 51% of them say that I have to give him the money? Would it then be acceptable, moral, or anything other than criminal, for the neighbor to come to my house and demand that I hand over the cash?"

3."What if 95 percent of my neighbors say so?"

4."is it OK for those very same people to elect a politician to do the very same thing? Is theft more palatable with a middle-man?"

5.If not, then why is it OK for a United States Senator to take my earnings and give them to someone who “needs” the money more than she believes I do, with a similar threat of violence or prison against me if I refuse to comply?

quote:

---

If the social media felt so strongly about it, they should have donated to the family so they could buy the medicine like anyone else.

---

Dick! I sure there would have been A LOT of people that donated if the company didn't give the kid the meds.

This is a touchy subject, but from what I gathered from this particular case linked in the article, it wasn't really about a drug being available for the right amount of $ (or if insurance covered it). They were petitioning for "compassionate use" of a drug on a child not covered in the FDA adult clinical trials, and the small biomedical company which is running the trials no longer releases its meds in compassionate use cases because it is focussing its resources on trying to get the drug approved.

FDA also seemed to cave to the social media pressure, and gave immediate approval to the company for a new clinical trial of the drug on kids, so he could get the drug. The company won some by the FDA cutting the red tape to allow them to do this.

As to the ethical question, yes, if it were my kid I would do anything possible to try and get him what was needed to save HIS life, and screw everyone else. But in the larger picture, ethically, I don't think it's fair that one person gets a treatment if it means possible delays for everyone else.

I can kind of understand the drug companies' stances on not releasing experimental meds, as it might screw up their chances for getting something approved by the FDA (although I'm not sure how bad results of usage outside a clinical trial might affect that process). It also means they have to use more of their possibly limited supply of a drug which might delay the release of the drug to the public.

Yeah experimental doesn't mean a guarantee.


It sucks....but sadly you can't save every dying child.


For the cost of saving that one child....how many children could you have saved in a third world country?

It could kill the kid but if he/she is already dying why not try?

so you don't have the guilt of killing your kid by giving him an experimental drug?

quote:

---

lsu480

---

I used to work with Phase I trials. People who are enrolled typically are not responding to traditional treatment and are basically agreeing to be guinea pigs in order to help others out in the future. I'm not sure about releasing liability, but if I were the lawyer for the drug company, in this case I would definitely be covering my arse. I agree with TH, if there are negative or unintended effects, people will be screaming for the drug company to pay.