Doctors aren't the only ones who can write prescriptions in the US. Yesterday, a federal judge ordered a research group to provide experimental drugs to a terminally ill teen suffering from a fatal type of muscular dystrophy.
The family of Jacob Gunvalson sued PTC Therapeutics alleging that the company led them to believe that Jacob could participate in a trial of the drug necessary for his survival. The company says it denied Jacob because it worried that unsafe results could taint the reputation of the new drug and hold back research. Since Jacob wasn't part of the preliminary trial, he did not qualify for the second round of the drug trial.
PTC maintains that it never promised Jacob an exception. The company's lawyers also argued that terminally ill patients do not have a legal right to unapproved drugs. But Jacob isn't just any terminally ill American. The judge said this case was different because PTC has a particularly close relationship with Jacob and his family, who even stayed overnight once at the company's VP's home.
Should we just take away the need for a lawsuit all together, and allow access to any terminally-ill patient willing to pay for experimental treatment?
Finesse
JC de CASTELBAJAC
Hafize Ozbudak
But isn't the point of testing drugs to see whether the results are good or not?
1I see both sides of this. One, I think people should be able to get any drug they can pay for. The FDA takes waaaaay to long approving life-saving drugs. Two, the drug company has to cover their butt's in today's lawsuit happy climate. It is a double edged sword.
2Very true.
3Then again, though, this company got sued for not providing the drug, so it seems like they can't win
4"Should we just take away the need for a lawsuit all together, and allow access to any terminally-ill patient willing to pay for experimental treatment?"
I think if they and their family sign a contract that states that they and their family will not sue the company for bad results, it would protect the company.
It seems here, though, that it was the profitablity of the drug that the drug company was protecting, not the ability to be sued for bad results.
"I think people should be able to get any drug they can pay for. The FDA takes waaaaay to long approving life-saving drugs."
I agree. I think if people are presented with accurate risks of medication, and they want to take it, they should be able to.
5I'm with you ladies. I see both sides of the situation. I do feel like the company could provide all kinds of clauses making them not liable if something does happen, but that doesn't mean they would win in court and it wouldn't correct the potential damage to their reputation.
6Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
7Oh, and look who is extra diamondly sparkly as of a minute ago thanks to the bigfoot guess who!
oooh, good points Jill and kim
8Yay GS!
9Oh, congratulations!!
10I don't know the details of this case, so I'm not entirely confident in my opinion. However, it seems like a judge shouldn't be allowed to force the company to give out a drug they don't want to give out. It doesn't really matter who the drug is for.
On a side-note, the FDA really makes me mad. They half-ass everything they do and don't require very thorough testing of a drug before they approve it. So there are all these potentially dangerous drugs on our market that people trust because the FDA approved it. I think we need to get rid of the FDA.
11Thank you, Thank you! There are so many people to thank. First, my agent.....
12Congratulations GS! You're just a couple days behind me
13CONGRATS all y'all!
14Congrats, GS. Rainbow looks great in diamonds!
15Thank you! She is a diamond type of girl!
16Congrats, diamond girl!
17Thank you!
18I have a friend who is terminally ill and an experimental drug not yet approved is his last hope - I would hate to see this chance denied to anyone.
19i can understand the company's apprehension about allowing the teen to take the drug - seeing as how they want the FDA to approve the use of the medication - but i guess we don't know the whole story do we. we don't know for sure how it was communicated to the family if the child could participate and then to find out that he couldn't. i think that if there is really a case that he was told that he could be included - and then they backed out - then that's reason for the govt to get involved -but otherwise - it's just a bad situation. i can only imagine what the family is going through - hoping that there's SOMETHING that their child can take to make his quality of life better.
20Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.