|
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Should trial sponsors pay for treatment?
Posted by Ivan Oransky [Entry posted at 31st January 2008 04:34 PM GMT]
Rate this article
Return to Top comment: No-Brainer: No-fault coverage in clinical trials by Elizabeth Woeckner [Comment posted 2008-02-06 05:03:55] For many years the University of Washington has provided no-fault payment to subjects harmed in research. I don't know the details (how well it works or what it costs) but if it works at one institution, it might work at others.
Loath as industry might be to see the status quo change, no fault coverage might be a change for the better. For all parties. Return to Top comment: Use of inflammatory language belittles the name by Steven Smith [Comment posted 2008-02-01 10:43:46] I like to read "The Scientist"; not "People" or ?The National Inquirer".
If I wanted to read a blog, I wouldn?t pay $. In this article, like the one it references, the Author Ivan Oransky, uses inflammatory language not fit for a Scientist discussion: ?In August 2006, Bergman had a needle filled with either saline or his own stem-like cells plunged into his heart.? Injected? Yes. Plunged? No. Here?s a Webster definition which I think is not compatible with a medical procedure: transitive verb1: to cause to penetrate or enter quickly and forcibly into something Let's leave the sensational / attention grabbing language for another topic, please. Return to Top comment: More Love in treating patients. by Sergio Stagnaro [Comment posted 2008-02-01 05:06:38] The following phrase impressed me: That chemotherapy, says Levitt, is ''tough,'' and the danger is that blood counts fall dramatically, making Bergman vulnerable to infection and bleeding.
Here is the central problem in treating patients. Not money to them, but Love: in my 51 year-long clinical experience Love alone doesn't cure. However, without Love, no physician can cure its (her) patient, even administering the most appropriate antibiotic. And thanks to such as Love, I discovered Oncological Terrain and Oncological Inherited Real Risk (Ask Google.com): the most efficacious therapy..is Primary Prevention. Return to Top comment: An Immediate Resolution of this conflict is needed - otherwise recruitment of volunteers for clinical trials will be in jeopardy by Shanthi Raam [Comment posted 2008-01-31 16:37:00] The general understanding is that most of the drugs cleared for phase III clinical trials and beyond are pre-tested to ensure that they do no serious harm to the patients. It is very sad that cases like those reported occur. If we follow the letter of the law, the research university should pay for the treatments, because such a clause is included in the consent form. However, in these cases we need to follow the spirit of the law it seems to me, and have both the drug companies and the university share the expenses because most of the time the universities cannot afford to do so without help from the drug companies.
One fact that emerges is crystal clear; patient recruitment for Phse III clinical trials and beyond would be in trouble if an immediate resolution to this very serious situation is not forthcoming. Comment on this blog |