- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #21
I don't see what's dangerous about terminally ill patients being allowed to test out new drugs that might help them if they choose to do so? Whats the worst side effect for someone who is going to die anyway? It might even save money in research in he long run.
I mentioned one reason why it could be bad. Every person who takes a drug during clinical trials has to be recorded. So if someone is a bad candidate for the trials, like being far gone in the disease where positive outcome is doubfult, or they have other problems that may show up during them taking the drug, it all has to be reported. and that will reflect poorly on the safety of the drug even though problems reported while the patient was on the drug had nothiong to do with the drug, it can be associated with it.
I think its in place to prevent fraud in clinical trials in that if there is an adverse event that occured while the drug was being taken, it has to be reported. THis prevents investigators from throwing out data to make favorable results.
But maybee they can pass a rule where people with no other options can take a particualr drug. I know its true in many cases, and they do try to fast track drugs which target a disease where there is no other treatment available.
but then people would complain that the drugs aren't safe if they eased up restrictions in clinical trails and acceptance of a new drug
So what your saying is that if someone who the drug may benefit is a "bad candidate" it could cause problems with the research because the scientists doing the research may now have more information on which to base conclusions.
Am I the only one who realizes that we should have more information and not less information when it comes to testing? Who, exactly, is going to be a good candidate if the people the drug is designed for aren't?