Drug trials who's to blame?

Bruv · 04-01-2006, 11:22 PM

Who should we blame for the recent case when the guinea pig's organs failed so dramatically.
They all entered into the trials knowing the dangers,were willing to recieve payment for the risk that they might be putting their life and health in danger.

It is a tragic turn of events, but should these people now hammer the drug company for compensation?

had_enough · 04-02-2006, 12:22 AM

No-one is too blame, they signed legal papers and knew the risks.
But knowing this legal system, they will no doubt get cheerie to be their solicitor and she will get £50k in legal fees and them a few thousand each.
Makes one want to vomit.

Bruv · 04-02-2006, 11:28 PM

On a simple scale compared to other claims they should be worth.....hundreds of thousands if not millions.
And you say a few thousand????

The Relic · 04-03-2006, 10:06 AM

Of course those victims should get compensation, and more power to them after what they've suffered.

Whatever contracts they may have signed, they undertook the trials on the understanding that the drugs were not life threatening and might only produce minor side effects. For the drug company to risk their lives or affliction of serious bodily harm surely makes it culpable, even to the extent that the DPP should be looking into applying criminal charges.

Sid · 04-03-2006, 12:18 PM

Please don't faint here had enough, I agree with you on this one. If the people involved in the trials, which they did for money, not medical advances, had been duped as the soldiers in the LSD tests were (Portan Down I think it was), then they may have a case for compensation. As it is, tough, next time think of your health, not your wallet.

The Relic · 04-03-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sid

Please don't faint here had enough, I agree with you on this one. If the people involved in the trials, which they did for money, not medical advances, had been duped as the soldiers in the LSD tests were (Portan Down I think it was), then they may have a case for compensation. As it is, tough, next time think of your health, not your wallet.

Lets descend to a more prosaic level and talk about endowment mortgages. The law holds that if the seller indicated at the time a mortgage was sold to you that it would cover the cost of your final repayment and it does not do so then the mortgage seller is culpable and you should expect compensation,

Another example. A tour company sells you a Greek cruise. The ship sinks, cauisng loss of life, injury and widespread distress, and it later emerges that the vessel is unsound and even unlicenced. If there was no indication of these shortcomings at the point of sale, the tour company becomes culpable and you should expect comepensation.

The same approach applies to people who are drawn into the far more serious area of drugs testing. If it is not very clearly indicated to them before they take the drugs that the drugs may be life threatening (in which case, who in their right mind would take them?) then the pharmaceutical company is culpable. Scotland Yard clearly takes this standpoint, as it is investigating the present case.

had_enough · 04-03-2006, 05:20 PM

Perhaps the drugs company should make publically availble the documents that they signed........as I am sure they would have covered every eventuallity in the small print.
Either way its a risk they took as with driving a car and walking down the street, only that they signed a release document, which should be legally binding.

The Relic · 04-03-2006, 05:29 PM

Contract or no contract, they become responsible as soon as they commit bodily harm to a human being. That's the law, and it's a sound law because it protects us from negligence.

Sid · 04-03-2006, 09:01 PM

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.
To now want compensation is a disgrace. It just about sums up society today; sue them and make money. That seems to be they way it's going; get as much money as you can for as little effort as possible.
Unfortunately these people were the unlucky ones. All those people who've been paid by the drug companies who've not had an adverse reaction should therefore pay back the money they received because no harm came to them, by your reckoning that is.
You GET your money, you take your chance.

GREED, the downfall of man!

Bruv · 04-03-2006, 11:40 PM

Of course The Relic is not wrong...mind you I dont think he is right either.In all of The Relic's examples a degree of negligence is clear.
Even if you have a simple run of the mill operation, the same as hundreds do every day, you have to sign a disclaimer.
You are pointed to the dangers that might happen, and all reasonable precautions are taken.But should there be a reaction to a certain drug or treatment that causes a massive reaction and you are put into grave danger,then it is the risk you take, unless it can be proven to be negligence.
I dont know but I would bet that the agreement signed by the participants in this tragedy covered every eventuality. And any claim would be based on if negligence could be found to be the cause of the problems.
Surely it would not be in the companies interests to be so cavalier in throwing caution to the winds hoping that they might win big time IF it works alright.
I personally believe the company is liable for the treatment the men recieve and any further help for the future resulting from their error in administering the drug, and perhaps a nominal sum.
No more than that.