The Drug Trial men?

Question

I think I may be missing something here about the 6 guys who have been in the news regarding the mishaps with a drugs trial they were taking part in. Surely, they must have signed a contract prior to taking part? Surely then, they would have been warned of the risks associated with taking part in a drugs trial? I think the point I may be missing is that this is the whole point of a drugs trial, to see what happens, and things do inevitably go wrong, so how can they really have redress to sue the company concerned, they were all paid for taking part the trial

Answer 1

These people would have been well payed for this, they would have been made aware that there were risks involved with any drugs trials,if everything had gone right they would have pocketed the cash and nothing more would have been heard about it,unfortunately it went wrong,but I have no sympathy,they took the money and took the risk

Answer 2

It wasn't just about the risks they took, but the fact that the company didn't do the trial in an ethically responsible way. The drug was administered to all of the volunteers at the same time.

A more correct procedure would have been to phase the administration of the drugs over an extended period so that if there was a severe reaction the effect was limited to a smaller number of individuals.

The company was being irresponsible in its methodology and no one individual should bear the consequences of this. There is still an onus of care upon any pharmaceutical company doing testing and they must bear the responsibility if they do not follow standard or accepted procedures.

If people sign up to drugs tests, there will inevitably be risks, but they should be eliminated as much as possible and it is not the individual acting as guinea pig who is directly responsible for this. Don't forget, the volunteers may be doing this for a whole set of reasons, not necessarily just financial, but they are not in a position to just that the test is truly safe or as safe as possible.

There was also a question as to why the drug company concerned was using fit people to test out a drug for a specific medical condition when this would have given no valid data back except toxicity (which in this case seems to have been severe). Even had the test been successful it would surely have given little information about its efficacy and at least if it was being used on someone with the condition, toxicity and effectiveness would have been tested together?

If the particular drug company is allowed to get away with this, then it leaves the door open for further abuses of their testing procedures and unfortunately they will probably only in reality respond adequately to adverse publicity and a significant award against them in a court case.

As regards to them being warned, it's a bit like saying that a company car driver has been warned that the company is not responsible for the safety of their vehicle, so when they have a fatal crash because the brakes failed then they or their relatives can't sue the company.

The company would also have been playing down the risks. If they had been clearly stated by the drugs company, do you think they would have done it for the relatively insignificant amounts?

Answer 3

Yes I'm sure they did, but were the risks made plain to them? You cannot legally sign away your rights unless it is made plain, nor can any contract protect a company from being sued for negligence.

I take your point, though - there is the risk that things would go wrong, so if they thought this would be several hundred quid risk-free, they don't understand how the world works.

Answer 4

previous a sensible doubt ... it truly is what the prosecutor is going for ... evidence of guilt to the point that a sensible man or woman does no longer doubt that your client did dedicate the offense. difficult situation: i do not comprehend the precedence on your mock trial. attempt to teach that he changed into in no way right now in contact with the commerce, he's "only a valid businessman"! If any drugs were being bought on his sources, he truly did not study about it. If drugs were being saved on his sources, it changed into without his expertise or consent, and so on. certain, it throws his workers contained in the commerce lower than the bus ... yet perhaps he receives off! construct a difficulty the position he turned right into a "fingers off" proprietor of the organisation ... his managers were right now in charge for the daily operations. He in easy words knew what changed into reported to him.

Answer 5

Yup..as far as I'm concerned...they knew what the risks were...had been paid thousands of pounds previously ...and it was just a way to make good money quickly. Now the ****'s hit the fan...well they're getting money for selling their stories to the tabloids..and also I believe that they're suing!! You can't have your cake and eat it....(did I get that saying right??) If you will play with fire...you'll end up getting burnt!!! (wow...those Frosties I had this morning sure woke up the quotes side of my brain!!)

Answer 6

Because you cant go into a drug trial knowing the possible harmful effects or any effects on the body otherwise it would compromise the experiment. Has to be a blind experiment. I dont think they were paid to almost die do you? So deserve compensation.

Answer 7

Exactly. I thought it was funny when this first appeared in the news, they all had lawyers within 24 hours! thats all people think about, money, lawyers sue.
Lawyers have ruined this country.
they signed their life away, tough luck as far as i am concerned, but no doubt caring Tony Blair will bail them out with a large lump sum.
Why is it in this country no one will take responsibility for their own actions anymore! .. instead they blame everyone but themselves.

Answer 8

Who would have thought that an animals immune system was different to a Human Beings??? - obviously not the company concerned, unless they did know, and just wanted to prove their results.

Answer 9

I'm sure they'll argue that the company knew its drug was unsafe or that the company was grossly negligent or something like that.

Answer 10

yes, but one of them has cancer