Havvoc on 19/3/2006 at 20:51
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Personally, I think they should be allowed to offer whatever the fuck they want to prospective test subjects. As long as you can say no, who is anyone else to question their decision?
Precisely. None of it is the fault of the testers as it is the fault of the testees (lol testes). It's not even remotely as if anyone is forcing them to take the drugs.
Uncia on 19/3/2006 at 21:35
Quote:
While science outstrips regulation...
Damn you science! DAMN YOU!
Sluggs on 19/3/2006 at 21:50
Testing on Humans at last! HOORAH! :D
ilweran on 20/3/2006 at 13:38
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Yes, everything will improve once they start losing money. And there is absolutely no connection between making money in pharmaceuticals and scientific progress or improving anyone's welfare.
I think the point is that they don't develop new treatments to help people, they do it to make a profit. As long as you, your insurance or the NHS pays up for the drug they're happy and your welfare is improved. If you're poor, in a poor country and can't afford the treatment you suffer.
TheGreatGodPan on 20/3/2006 at 20:22
Quote Posted by Havvoc
Precisely. None of it is the fault of the testers as it is the fault of the testees (lol testes). It's not even remotely as if anyone is forcing them to take the drugs.
The test subjects accept that they are taking a risk, but I don't think you can say it is their "fault" unless they do something they're not supposed to (taking medication beforehand that could react badly would be an example). The reason for why this occurred doesn't seem to be clear yet, so I don't think we can assign blame yet.
Quote Posted by ilweran
I think the point is that they don't develop new treatments to help people, they do it to make a profit. As long as you, your insurance or the NHS pays up for the drug they're happy and your welfare is improved. If you're poor, in a poor country and can't afford the treatment you suffer.
I think helping people is likely one reason people have for going into the field. Money is, of course, another. I can definitely see how better off people are going to be more likely to have access to treatments earlier than most poorer people, but I don't see where those people are made worse off (they suffer because they are sick, not because someone richer is made well) or how more governmental regulation is going to improve sick people's welfare.
Mortal Monkey on 20/3/2006 at 22:13
Hah, screw remote-controlled sharks, a drug that makes people explode is totally more awesome.
And just think of chemical warfare! Nevermind napalm, this stuff is at least as gruesome, effective in small doses and enviromentally friendly. Killer!
