If a new medicine were developed that would cure arthritis but.....?

Question

would cause a fatal reaction in 1% of those who took it, would you want it to be released to the public? Why or why not? A cure for what illness would be worth the risk? What's the highest percentage acceptable?

Answer 1

I would want it released, because it can help 99% of sufferers, but I would want a "black box" warning to be attached, qualifying this risk.
There are many medications out now that have a known risk of causing severe reactions, including death. I wouldn't use it as first-line therapy; instead, I would use it as a last resort, if the patient fails other standard therapy regimens.
The final decision should lie in the hands of the patient and their educated physician. How old is the patient? How severe is there disease? What is the end goal?
There would have to be more sufficient data about the warning signs of the fatal reaction (might we be able to possibly stop the medication in time? how soon does the reaction occur?).
I wouldn't be anxious to prescribe it until it was on the market for several years, and I had a chance to review the data on it.

Answer 2

Arthritis can be a very painful and debilitating disease. If it would cure the most serious cases, and with the full disclosure to the patient, I would have to say yes. But if the arthritis isn't debilitating and can be controlled with only minor pain relief, I would say no.

All medications have side effects - death is obviously one we wish to avoid - in the end, I think it would be up to the individual - but just to unleash it on the public wouldn't be ethical.

Answer 3

Yes, a fatal reaction of 1% of any drug would be good news not many are that low!, as an arthritis sufferer myself, I will take the odds that I am in the 99% unaffected, and that the drug is effective. If it proves to be ineffective then its not worth the risk or expense.