Should Elephant Man be Compensated?

Pighead

For those unaware of who the elephant man is, here is a link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4914546.stm

So do you think that these people who voluntarily put themselves forward to take part in drug trials should be compensated if things go horribly wrong. Pighead thinks not.

These lads and lassies are fully aware of the risks and therefore, I reckon, they should get sod all. Out of interest does anybody know roughly how much these guinea pigs are paid?

sceptre

Pighead wrote:

Out of interest does anybody know roughly how much these guinea pigs are paid?

Completely off the top of my head and with no referenced basis I'll take a guess at £2000 in this specific case.

Pighead

sceptre wrote:

Completely off the top of my head and with no referenced basis I'll take a guess at £2000 in this specific case.

It says that in the link Pighead posted doesn't it. Time for one of these bad boys.:o

seamus

Pighead wrote:

So do you think that these people who voluntarily put themselves forward to take part in drug trials should be compensated if things go horribly wrong. Pighead thinks not.

There's a certain responsibility on the part of the manufacturers to attempt to ensure that the drugs they're trialling are remotely safe.

From the chemical content, it should be possible to determine most of the possible effects of a drug on a tester. After all, they have a rough idea that it'll be effective on whatever it is they're trying to treat, so why can't they get a good idea of most of the other effects it'll have?

£2000 is rather measly. Given the billions of euros these companies milk from the oblivious public each year, surely to God they could pay testers some money which even remotely reflects the risk they put themselves in.

Pighead

Yes, I suppose so, maybe Pighead should reserve judgement until all the facts become clear, although from what I know so far I don't think they should be compensated.If the drug company followed all the proper procedures and guidelines then no, they signed the consent forms and knew what they were doing.

the_syco

Pighead wrote:

Yes, I suppose so

OT, but thats the first time Pighead has referred to itself as "I"...

=-=

The drug company should pay for the treatment.

Pighead

the_syco wrote:

OT, but thats the first time Pighead has referred to itself as "I"...

=-=

The drug company should pay for the treatment.

OT, No it's not.......

As for the drug company paying for the treatment, why should they. The lads knew the risks involved and as far as Pigheads concerned if you're greedy or silly enough to test a drug which you know could be potentially harmful then you're gonna have to accept the consequences.

Would you have done the testing for 2 grand syco?

Sam Vimes

the_syco wrote:

OT, but thats the first time Pighead has referred to itself as "I"...

=-=

The drug company should pay for the treatment.

i'm afraid its not. he has slipped up at least once before. vimes lost all faith in him when he saw that

fly_agaric

Pighead wrote:

For those unaware of who the elephant man is, here is a link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4914546.stm

That was what his GF compared him to wasn't it?

Pighead wrote:

So do you think that these people who voluntarily put themselves forward to take part in drug trials should be compensated if things go horribly wrong. Pighead thinks not.

I think they should get alot more than those men got if there is a risk of such damage from testing the drug.
I mean what happened to them was somewhat more serious than the drug making them ill for even a few weeks or giving them a terrible rash (even a permanent one!) or whatever.
You might expect the type of damage these fellows suffered if you were doing the testing for the army at Porton Down or something but would you really think there was even a small chance of it happening to you in a drugs trial?

Pighead wrote:

These lads and lassies are fully aware of the risks and therefore, I reckon, they should get sod all.

I don't actually think they allow women to test such drugs, do they? (pregnancy issues??)

leeroybrown

Anyone who has read the information leaflet that comes with fully tested and licenced modern medicines will know that the list of possible side effects tends to be quite long. These guys signed up for a clinical trial where the full possible side effects can't have been known.

Unless the companies involved in the trial neglected their duty to correctly assess the risks and inform the candidates of them then they've probably covered themselves. The contract involved was probably quite terse in terms of the candidates rights in the event of a problem.

guildofevil

Did they really know the risks though? Were they just told that this drug might have side effects? Or were they told that this drug might have potentially maiming and life threatening side effects? The company probably covered itself in the fine print, but there are other things to consider.

The question is, should they be compensated. In what sense?

Are we talking about the companies moral obligations here, as opposed to the legal ones? In that case, as no none expected this to happen, I think it is the companies duty to compensate the individuals, as it was their drug that did the damage. £2000 is hardly adequate compensation for this poor sod.

Moral obligations don't tend to matter much to pharmaceutical companies and legally, they probably don't have to pay him any more than the £2,000 agreed, but that does not mean that the company should not do so. After all, this is not the last drug trial they will be trying to run.

This incident is going to do the company quite a bit of damage as it is. Providing top notch medical care and generous compensation, would be nothing more than a damage limitation exercise for them.

seamus

leeroybrown wrote:

Unless the companies involved in the trial neglected their duty to correctly assess the risks and inform the candidates of them then they've probably covered themselves. The contract involved was probably quite terse in terms of the candidates rights in the event of a problem.

Thankfully though, you cannot actually sign away your life in any contract. In the event of your death or permanent brain damage etc, the company can still find themselves in legal hot water. They could even be charged with manslaughter if an investigation shows that they failed to assess the potential risk to each and individual volunteer. "But he signed the waiver" is not sufficient.

The same could apply if, say they were testing a drug for Alzheimer's and every participant found themselves permanently sterile after the test. There is no contract that could protect a company from the litigation that would follow.

Kolodny

guildofevil wrote:

Were they just told that this drug might have side effects? Or were they told that this drug might have potentially maiming and life threatening side effects? The company probably covered itself in the fine print, but there are other things to consider.

I'd love to know how fine that print was. Doubtful they were told about the chances of contracting gangrene, cancer and various other incurable illnesses.

The Sunday Times, July 30, 2006
Elephant Man drug victims told to expect early death

VICTIMS of the disastrous “Elephant Man” drugs trial have been told they face contracting cancer and other fatal diseases as a result of being poisoned in the bungled tests. One of the six victims was told last week he is already showing “definite early signs” of lymphatic cancer. He and three others have also been warned that they are “highly likely” to develop incurable auto-immune diseases.

The men had been told by doctors they would not suffer any life-threatening illnesses.

Nav Modi, 24, whose bloated face and swollen chest led to the nickname “Elephant Man”, said he did not know how long he would live. “It’s a really bizarre feeling when you discover you might be dead in a couple of years or even in a couple of months,” he said. “I feel like I’ve given away my life for £2,000.”

From: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/305/80/

Personally, I think that given there could be months/years of treatment ahead for some, indeed all of them, they’re entitled to some form of generous compensation I don't think the trial having an ‘unexpected’ outcome gives the company the right to disclaim responsibility. Someone messed up somewhere along the line. The participants knew they were putting themselves at risk but I can't imagine any of them signing up for £2000 knowing they might not be around to spend it.

HelterSkelter

I think the guy should be compensated. The drug companies make massive profits from all the drugs that are successfully tested and make it to the market. There should be some form of compensation fund in place in the event that someone is seriously damaged.

I saw the programme on Ch 4 about this case and it looks as if the drug company didn't complete the necessary trials before testing the drug on humans. I think the way the way Ryan Wilson has been treated by the drug companies is a disgrace. He has received absolutly no communication from them, not even an apology.

Sam Vimes

the man signed a contract that said

"this could be dangerous. you are the first human it will be tried on. you will be paid x amount to take this risk"

he chose to gamble with his health and he lost. its not the company's fault

Kolodny wrote:

I don't think the trial having an ‘unexpected’ outcome gives the company the right to disclaim responsibility

he signed a contract that gave them that right


however, if they didn't follow the correct procedures and were negligent as some people were suggesting, i think he should be compensated


what i wondered at the time was why did they give it to a few people at once? couldn't they put it in one person and leave it a few days before putting it in the rest to see if there were any immediate ill effects

HelterSkelter

The programme also said they infused the drug at too fast a rate. The doctor they interviewed said that it should have been infused over a period of no less than one hour so that side effects could be monitored and the infustion stopped if necessary. The actual infusion in this trial took place in 6 minutes.

seamus

Commander Vimes wrote:

he signed a contract that gave them that right

As I've pointed out above, just because a contract was signed, doesn't make it enforceable. You simply cannot sign away all of your rights, it's not possible. Imagine you started a job, and in that contract it said, "If you leave or are fired, you must turn over your house to the company". Even if the man was single, no children, and signed the contract, the company would find it next to impossible to enforce the contract in court if the man left.

You cannot enforce a contract if a court determines the terms of that contract to be unreasonable.

In this case, any contract which says, "Anything that happens to you is not our problem", would IMO be wholly unreasonable.

astrofool

He should and will be compensated according to his injuries. The company is responsible for the effects of the drug, and would have had to show that it was at least tested to a level to avoid criminal charges of negligence.

Even at that, if it had gone through the proper procedures, the company still takes responsibility for what happens to the triallists, regardless of the fee being paid, which at least covers them for milder side effects.

This is not to say that trials should be stopped, but just that when they do (and more will go wrong), the company is taking that responsibility (and will have expensive insurance to that effect).

Pighead

But everybody knows that there are gonna be risks in taking part in these kind of trials. Its a gamble. Its like buying loads of shares in a company. Theres a chance you're gonna get rich quick but theres also a chance the company will go bust and you'll lose everything. Even if the reason the company goes bust is because the managers didn't act responsibly or in you're best interests you're still not going to get compensated.

fly_agaric

Pighead wrote:

But everybody knows that there are gonna be risks in taking part in these kind of trials. Its a gamble. Its like buying loads of shares in a company.

If the things should be as tough-titty as you suggest for those who take part in drugs trials, wouldn't borrowing a load of money from a vicious thug and then buying the risky shares be a better comparison?:)

astrofool

There's a big difference between a monetary risk and the risk of death, the companies accept the responsibility if it goes badly wrong, and will (should) have insurance to that effect, no matter how great the compensation is, otherwise, they would not be allowed to run trials in the first place (it also places the onus on them to ensure it's tested fully).

Otherwise, whats to stop them going to a poor country and paying people peanuts to take whatever new cocktail they've thought up. They could make camps for these people to vist and stay while they perform these experiments, and feed them on nutritious banana's. I think i'll stop there before godwinning it