Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sid They became responsible when they agreed to the trials in the first place. If they'd done as much research into the trial they were going to take part in as those who were conducting the trial, maybe they wouldn't have been enticed so much by the £2000 on offer.
They didn't think anything was going to happen to them, that's why they took the money. The drug company didn't know anything of the sort was going to happen, that's why they'd spent so much time and money on a drug that they thought would be of benefit to humans, as well as their bank balance. |
And how I are the victims supposed to penetrate an industrial secret to do this "research" in the first place? Do you think the drugs companies open up their research to scrutiny?
Further, do you think they sat these people down and lectured them on the possibility of actual bodily harm, which would surely send all but the most foolish heading straight for the door? I rather think that the stress would have been put on the dependability of earlier testing, and reassurance given. Small print in contracts is rarely read and understood because of the language used, and even so where
any harm is done to a human being, whether by an individual or corporate body they become legally responsible.
The company involved is surely as culpable as the person who uses a mobile 'phone while driving, believing that they are such safe drivers that nothing can go wrong and then run over a pedstrian.
Human greed? They took a job to earn extra money. Take your point of view to its logical conclusion, and everyone who goes to work for money out of "greed" takes complete responsibility for what happens to them whilst at work and should never get compensation if anything goes wrong there.
Linear Mode
