yea yea fox news

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/03/11/charity-offers-to-pay-for-7-year-old-lifesaving-treatment-drug-maker-still/

The gist of the article is that there's a pharma company out there that makes a pretty specific drug that hasn't passed the final FDA approvals, but they've granted emergency access to patients in the past. Now for whatever reason, even though they have enough donations to pay for the drug, the company won't help this kid out.

Without it he has about a week to live. Oh yea the kid has pretty much beat kidney cancer and heart failure.

I guess my question is, if you have the ability to save someone's life with a product you make, why not let it be used?

3/11/2014 9:13:12 PM

Nevermind.

While I was typing up the OP, it broke that the company is going to allow the drug to be used. GG grassroots movement.

Lock/suspend/delete

3/11/2014 9:14:14 PM

Quote :

"I guess my question is, if you have the ability to save someone's life with a product you make, why not let it be used?"

Finally coming around to single-payer I see.

3/11/2014 10:51:39 PM

Yea, if you trust the gubment with your health. I certainly don't.

3/12/2014 7:55:47 AM

because instead we should trust profit-seeking corporations?

3/12/2014 8:22:14 AM

eehhh lets be honest here.

It's not like one modality removes all of the obstacles to making the right decisions. You trade one set of problems for another whether healthcare delivery is handled in the private sector or by a government entity.

Unless you're america. Then you get the worst of both worlds.

This is a pretty good case study on that. The pharma company didn't want to help because it didn't further their profit motive. Even if they immediately decided to help, there was the FDA bureaucratic maze to navigate before it could happen.

3/12/2014 9:33:11 AM

At least without the government involved, I can opt out.

3/12/2014 9:48:34 AM

^^BobbyDigital brings the wizdomz

3/12/2014 9:51:25 AM

Regarding the FDA though, the article mentioned that it had granted emergency access to the drug quite a few times in the past, so there seems to be an established SOP for getting authorization to use it if needed badly enough.

I wonder how many cancer drugs are out there behind the scenes that work that are caught up in FDA red tape.

3/12/2014 9:53:26 AM

The company's only obligation is to its shareholders. They don't have the time and money to stop and drop whatever they are doing to provide drugs to every kid with cancer.

If I were a shareholder I'd be demanding this CEO's resignation for not having the spine to stand up to public pressure and possibly harming the bottom line.

3/12/2014 9:58:57 AM

I hope you're just being a troll.

3/12/2014 10:05:04 AM

This company is in Durham btw.

Also, the article I originally read listed a couple of good reasons not related to profits on why the company shouldn't have given this kid the drug.

3/12/2014 10:24:28 AM

Quote :

"At least without the government involved, I can opt out."

opt out by either not having anything or opt out by choosing another profit-motivated corporation?

[Edited on March 12, 2014 at 11:27 AM. Reason : ^we're talking in general now, the OP ended already]

3/12/2014 11:27:18 AM

The drug is not yet approved, which means in any case it is administered is fair ground for not approving the drug. If they give the child the drug, and he dies, it has to be examined and explained which can lead to delay of the drug or even rejection in cases (this has happened before).

Its a classic moral issue. Do you try to save one now and risk delaying the drug and causing potentially hundreds of deaths (or maybe thousands if it is rejected)?

Nothing about this case is really cut and dry. Its certainly not about an "evil drug company that doesn't want to save a kid."

Even if the FDA ok's compassionate use, it still has be be factored into the approval decision. Also most of the compassionate use was in Phase 1 of clinical trials, which is routine.

Either way this is a terrible situation for everyone involved. I hope the drug helps and saves the kids life, and doesn't impact approval if it truly is a life saving drug. That would be ideal.

3/12/2014 2:39:33 PM