- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you save a dying kid?
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:48 pm to lsu480
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:48 pm to lsu480
quote:
It could kill the kid but if he/she is already dying why not try?
I would think that it could cause delays in the development and widespread use/production of the drug. I would also think that it is more difficult to produce a particular drug in the earlier stages of development. If this is the case then who is really being selfish--the pharma company or the kids family?
2
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:51 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
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.
These clinical trials are meticulously managed to collect a range of data for the FDA. The problem is that this kids is pretty far gone and his odds are quite low even with the medicine.
Even with "compassionate use", the FDA makes no distinction with the data. If this kid, who is outside of the clinical control of the company, dies -- even if it is of no fault of the drug -- his death has to be included in the data.
The FDA takes death very seriously (as they should), so it can possibly delay the release of the drug for years -- keeping it out of the hands of large numbers of people who need it. Thousands who could've been treated could theoretically die during the delay -- a delay that was caused because a dying child was administered the medicine due to outside pressure.
It's a tough issue. Even compassionate use typically has strict guidelines. The drug companies want to make their money and the sick want their medicine, but the FDA controls the availability -- and they are very rigid.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:52 pm to Peazey
quote:
I would think that it could cause delays in the development and widespread use/production of the drug. I
If the drug is killing the intended patients, perhaps it would be smart to slow things down before beginning mass production.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:52 pm to Dorothy
quote:
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.
Correct response. Of course it's not fair, and the parents of that child reserve the right to give zero fricks about what's fair.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:53 pm to TH03
quote:
and if this experimental drug kills the kid, will the Facebook activists pay the civil damages?
I was wondering this. Perhaps this drug is at a phase where there's some evidence it might save the kid's life. But what if the drug company also has research showing it could just as likely kill him. Imagine Social Media blowing up over the big mean drug company giving drugs to a child that "they knew could kill him". They could be in a lose/lose situation here.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:54 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Imagine Social Media blowing up over the big mean drug company giving drugs to a child that "they knew could kill him". They could be in a lose/lose situation here.
I can't stand keyboard crusaders.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:56 pm to PuntBamaPunt
quote:
If the drug is killing the intended patients, perhaps it would be smart to slow things down before beginning mass production.
this is why drug trials are extremely limited in scope and not just anyone can hop on board for the treatment
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:58 pm to PuntBamaPunt
quote:
If the drug is killing the intended patients, perhaps it would be smart to slow things down before beginning mass production.
I guess that's kind of the point. Just giving this drug to anyone would slow down the development of the drug into something useful.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 1:58 pm to lsu480
quote:
to release them of liability
I don't think you can waive personal injury or death. I may be wrong, though.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:03 pm to TH03
quote:
I can't stand keyboard crusaders.
Most of the time they really don't have any real idea about what they're so riled up about.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:07 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Most of the time they really don't have any real idea about what they're so riled up about.
Wasn't there a hoax petition where they got people to sign for dihydrogen monoxide to be banned?
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:10 pm to Peazey
quote:
Wasn't there a hoax petition where they got people to sign for dihydrogen monoxide to be banned?
I wouldn't doubt it. I've seen a number of videos where they go around and get people to sign all sorts of stupid petitions just to show how stupid people are. Some of their top hunting grounds are college campuses.
This post was edited on 3/24/14 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:14 pm to Peazey
quote:
I would think that it could cause delays in the development and widespread use/production of the drug. I would also think that it is more difficult to produce a particular drug in the earlier stages of development. If this is the case then who is really being selfish--the pharma company or the kids family?
Probably the parents but it is their responsibility to be selfish in this situation.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:25 pm to xXLSUXx
what about poor kids around the world that need it
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:27 pm to lsu480
quote:
Probably the parents but it is their responsibility to be selfish in this situation.
Definitely but I doubt that is the line of thought that the social media protesters followed.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:30 pm to xXLSUXx
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.
Because they couldn't but the experimental drugs even if they had money. This was pressure for the company to ok a compassionate use exemption, which it previously refused.
FDA issues aside, why do people have an issue with people exerting pressure on a company?
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:32 pm to xXLSUXx
The problems associated with allowing the compassionate usage causes difficult decisions for small pharma companies.. This drug will likely make or break this company.. When compassionate usage is allowed, the results are usually included in the results and that could be a bad thing for the company.. These are people who are dying and compromised health wise. The drug may work but not for these candidates under these circumstances.. Its a tough call and the companies reversal is fine by me but so was their original decision.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:33 pm to TH03
quote:
and if this experimental drug kills the kid, will the Facebook activists pay the civil damages?
it's experimental and he's terminal if the drugs kill him well so what he was going to die anyway. no damages can be sought for experimental drugs i bet they make you sign something beforehand.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:34 pm to TH03
quote:
so you don't have the guilt of killing your kid by giving him an experimental drug?
i'd rather give him the drug and have it kill him than not have tried to save him at all.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 2:40 pm to xXLSUXx
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.
If memory serves they did raise money, company still refused.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News