# Would you play with your life for Â£2k?



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4811626.stm

:?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Shocking. The description in the Metro today of what happened when they were injected sounds like something from a horror movie, and made me feel quite naucious. Awful.

The pharma company can expect an expensive law suit, I hope. As far as I know, whatever they signed, you cannot waived responsibility for death and serious injury. There are risks with taking experimental drugs, but these are not what any reasonable person would sign up for.


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

I disagree.
As much as this is an awful incident, they signed up willingly for it and were happy enough to take the money in the first place.

The clue would be that they are testing experimental drugs.

Rogue


----------



## DW225 (Jun 22, 2005)

Gotta say I'm with rogue on this one......they weighed up the risk against the 2k cash payment and decided to go for it.

Experimental drugs are just that.....no one knew what could happen to humans administered these drugs, yet they still signed the liabilty waiver or whatever, banked the cheque and away to go.

Should be case closed IMO.

Dave 8)


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

It makes economic sense for drug companies to do this - they may get sued (despite making people sign disclaimers), but there is no market to kill or brand name to damage, and a few lives in clinical trials are quickly forgotten. Unlike say Thalidomide which went on to affect 000s after general release.

Maybe 'volunteers' should come from the prisons - there are plenty of lifers - who owe society a debt...

I am sure all the animal activists are happy that we are doing less with floppy bunny wunnies, and more with humans. :twisted:


----------



## vernan (May 27, 2002)

Highlights the modern blame culture.

What did they think might happen? Why would they get Â£2k? For sitting around reading FHM? Yeah right, life works like that.

They willingly chose to do a test on a drug that humans hadn't taken before _to see if there were any side effects_. That's what a test is for. There were. Bad ones. OK then, that test was successful.

I have never overdosed on heroin and died. Why? because I've decided not to take heroin. Simple really.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Drug testing is an important phase of finding and manufacturing new medicine. These people had signed up and should have been aware of the risks.

I was born around the time of the Thalidamide scandle in the early 60s, which is a good example of how drugs can go wrong and how imprtant these tests are to prevent a wide spread reoccurance of this sort of thing.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

vernan said:


> Highlights the modern blame culture.
> 
> What did they think might happen? Why would they get Â£2k? For sitting around reading FHM? Yeah right, life works like that.
> 
> ...


You mean we can't blame Tony Blair, whose educational policies have forced these poor middle-classed kids to have to take part in drug company clinical trials so they can get more money to pay for books, or possibly recreational drugs and alchohol? Oh.

ps where are the heroin clinical trials taking place and how much are they paying? :twisted:


----------



## chip (Dec 24, 2002)

Although 2k isn't a a huge amount of cash for some people who have a reasonable stable job, I am taking a wild guess that these volunteers were in a dire financial situation. If so, as they say, desperate people will do desperate things 

Just read in Evening Standard that 2 other guys was involved in this same test, but they were given a dummy / control drug instead so they were unaffected. Bet they are relieved!! Interesting point in the article states that all the volunteers was given the test drugs simultaneously, which breaches normal testing guidelines, and could result in a large compensation payout to the volunteers / spouse.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Sorry, but you cannot (legally or ethically) waive responsibility for death or serious injury.

How about I pay your family Â£10k and you sign this waiver allowing me to kill you? I shouldn't be charged with murder, right, because you knew of the consequences? It's about protecting people from being exploited because of their financial or mental state. See what happens when you take the stance some of you have here. _Constant Gardener_?

The fact that the company was prepared to Â£2k each are just market forces in play - something which some of you on this forum are all too quick to point out in other situations. That fact does not relieve anyone or any corporation of its legal responsibilities. I wouldn't think of calling "death" a side effect. :roll:


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

chip said:


> Although 2k isn't a a huge amount of cash for some people who have a reasonable stable job, I am taking a wild guess that these volunteers were in a dire financial situation. If so, as they say, desperate people will do desperate things


Average age was 24, im betting student/post grads trying to get on with life.


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

Greed ~ If nothing went wrong then we'd be none the wiser and they'd be 2 grand better off.

They signed up, knowing the risks of taking an experimental drug, and would have quite happily gone away to spend their money at the end of it. Tough sh1te guys. No sympathy from me!


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

Karcsi said:


> How about I pay your family Â£10k and you sign this waiver allowing me to kill you? I shouldn't be charged with murder, right, because you knew of the consequences?
> 
> The fact that the company was prepared to Â£2k each are just market forces in play - something which some of you on this forum are all too quick to point out in other situations. That fact does not relieve anyone or any corporation of its legal responsibilities. I wouldn't think of calling "death" a side effect. :roll:


The flaw in your example is that I would KNOW 100% you were going to kill me.
These people know there is a RISK they might be hurt, but they're hoping they won't be and gambling 50/50 on the outcome.

In summary, they KNEW of the risks when they signed their contracts.
Therefore they can't complain.

Rogue


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

I can't believe any of you that seem to condone what has happened, seemingly just because you resent that they were paid a large amount of money for the privilege.

Rogue, in what shape or form would it be different if I paid you Â£10k such that on the turn of a card or throw of die I would kill you (making the process that much more exciting for the imbalanced of mind) than what they did, only that neither party is taking any enjoyment from it - other than you (it seems) and other others here.

It is sad enough that people will take such risks for financial gain, and how that reflects on the state of our society, without people saying that they got what they deserved. Nice.


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

any medication taken by anyone has been tested in this way

I say they are pioneers

:wink:


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

Karcsi said:


> I can't believe any of you that seem to condone what has happened, seemingly just because you resent that they were paid a large amount of money for the privilege.
> 
> Rogue, in what shape or form would it be different if I paid you Â£10k such that on the turn of a card or throw of die I would kill you (making the process that much more exciting for the imbalanced of mind) than what they did, only that neither party is taking any enjoyment from it - other than you (it seems) and other others here.
> 
> It is sad enough that people will take such risks for financial gain, and how that reflects on the state of our society, without people saying that they got what they deserved. Nice.


At what point in any of my two posts have I said "they deserved it".
I've stated that they knew the risks.
Much the same as if I was to try a bungee jump, I'd know there was a risk involved, but it would be MY decision whether I made the jump or not.

At the end of the day, these people were attempting to make easy money, but unfortunately for them things didn't go as planned.
If they were doing if for free, I would have more sympathy for them, but they did it for money.

Your turn of a card/throw of a die isn't the same, because you're saying "what if I approached you offering you money", when obviously these people have approached the pharmaceutical testing company and *offered themselves* as guinea pigs.

Rogue


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Rogue said:


> I disagree.
> As much as this is an awful incident, they signed up willingly for it and were happy enough to take the money in the first place.
> 
> The clue would be that they are testing experimental drugs.
> ...


Gotta agree - did they just think it was an easy Â£2k risk free? I bet the first person to test a parachute did not get 2k!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Karcsi said:


> I can't believe any of you that seem to condone what has happened, seemingly just because you resent that they were paid a large amount of money for the privilege.
> 
> Rogue, in what shape or form would it be different if I paid you Â£10k such that on the turn of a card or throw of die I would kill you (making the process that much more exciting for the imbalanced of mind) than what they did, only that neither party is taking any enjoyment from it - other than you (it seems) and other others here.
> 
> It is sad enough that people will take such risks for financial gain, and how that reflects on the state of our society, without people saying that they got what they deserved. Nice.


So, what should the price be? More? Less? No money to change hands? Should the drug companies skip clinical trials altogether? Spend more time and money modelling in R&D and pass the costs on to the NHS's of this world? Don't bother developing more drugs in this field of anti-inflammation treatment and concentrate on more lucrative lifestyle drugs?

What's the better system?

I already jocularly suggested using our stockpile of convicted murderers, rapists and kiddy fiddlers as drug test fodder, but don't hear any other solutions.


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

There is no other way to pilot a newdrug in humans except by using paid human volunteers

Who would do it for nothing? no one

These people would have done it several times before and got away with it. Risk caught up with them this time. The drug company will have the signed consent forms under lock and key.

Biologically drugs (like TGN1412) are extrememly dangerous and even when in use can cause no end of side effects.

The issues really are of

should money have exchanged hands for a pilot study in humans
and
have they been consented correctly
and
if one dies can a charge of murder or manslaughter be brought?

the later would change medical testing quite considerably


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

Karcsi said:


> I can't believe any of you that seem to condone what has happened, seemingly just because you resent that they were paid a large amount of money for the privilege.


I don't resent them being paid money. I have no issue with that. But, surely they weren't stupid enough to sign up thinking it was going to be a 2 grand 'sit on your backside jolly'.

Pharmaceutical testing company + paid *volunteers* + known risk = Who's at fault? Certainly not the company!

I wouldn't do it for any money as I wouldn't want to take the risk. It was their choice to do it for 2 grand. So, why the big hoo-haa?


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

auditt260bhp said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe any of you that seem to condone what has happened, seemingly just because you resent that they were paid a large amount of money for the privilege.
> ...


Whilst the testing or development company have not yet proven to have done anything wrong it is equally a bit early to say they have done nothing wrong in terms of the adequacy of the previous labaroatory and animal testing and the delivery of the drugs being tested in this instance.

If there are shown to have been errors in any of these then the level of risk faced by the volunteers would be different to that which they had agreed to face.

Even if there are no flaws in the lead up to these injections it is arguable that the level and uniformity of reaction in this case, far in excess of any previously recorded in this country, means that the level of risk was far greater than was anticipated - and certainly that the level of risk was not known (though of course the point of such tests is that the level of risk is not known).


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I'm not sure the people taking the drugs quite expected this though...

When I was at college, and in dire need of money, I heard about trials that gave you a drug which stopped your heart for a small amount of time. Apparently quite safe, but I wasn't going to risk it.

I did think about it though.

I guess what I'm getting at is that when you sign up for something like this, you might expect side-effects to be a headache, or nausea, or maybe a rash. Not for you head to swell up to three times its usual size.

All that aside, I don't think it's greed that makes people take part, it's desperation.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Kell said:


> I guess what I'm getting at is that when you sign up for something like this, you might expect side-effects to be a headache, or nausea, or maybe a rash. Not for you head to swell up to three times its usual size.


My point exactly. I don't think that human testing should be band, far from it - lots of lives are saved when drugs work and are used sooner rather than later. But there must be controls in place to prevent dangerous drugs being tested on humans, before alternative testing has ruled out the dangerous side effects. That means a company cannot waive its responsibilities for death and serious injury, irrespective of how much the guinea pig was paid.

Perhaps there should be a limit on the size of payments, if that is encouraging both companies and people to take on more risk than is responsible to do. There is after all profit driving companies to test drugs earlier on humans and to get their product out on the market first, and if it means paying a dozen people thousands each to do that, I'm sure they would be prepared to do that.

Rogue, and others: Your tone has been that they knew what they were getting into and were paid handsomely for it, therefore have nothing to complain about. How is that anything but that you feel that they got their comeuppance, greedy so and sos?


----------



## DW225 (Jun 22, 2005)

Karcsi said:


> Rogue, and others: Your tone has been that they knew what they were getting into and were paid handsomely for it, therefore have nothing to complain about. How is that anything but that you feel that they got their comeuppance, greedy so and sos?


I assume that I'm one of the "others" you refer to and quite frankly you've got completely the wrong end of the stick with regard to my "tone".

I've never said or suggested that they got their "comeuppance, greedy sos and sos", what I said is that they weighed up the risks against the money and made their choice. Bit of a difference in those statements.

Insinuating that I feel they got their comeuppance? Wrong, no-one deserves what they're going through BUT the fact remains it was their choice.

Dave 8)


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

Karcsi said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > I guess what I'm getting at is that when you sign up for something like this, you might expect side-effects to be a headache, or nausea, or maybe a rash. Not for you head to swell up to three times its usual size.
> ...


Ehm, what Kell said WASN'T your point exactly.
You seem to not really HAVE a point, but instead insist that the rest of us are jealous that they got Â£2k.
I know Â£2k is a lot of money to some people, but it's not a lot of money to others.
You seem to have it in your head that I (and others ) are begrudging them the money.
I don't care if they did it for Â£1,000,000 or Â£1.
The fact is that THEY made the choice to do it.
No-one forced them into it.

Now there's talk that they're going to sue the company, and one guy was interviewed on the radio today (and was probably paid for that too) so they'll probably make more money out of their misfortune than they would have originally.

Rogue


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Rogue said:


> Ehm, what Kell said WASN'T your point exactly.
> You seem to not really HAVE a point, but instead insist that the rest of us are jealous that they got Â£2k.
> I know Â£2k is a lot of money to some people, but it's not a lot of money to others.
> You seem to have it in your head that I (and others ) are begrudging them the money.
> ...


Err, yes it was. The very first post I made, actually, which you promptly disagreed with.



Karcsi said:


> The pharma company can expect an expensive law suit, I hope. As far as I know, whatever they signed, you cannot waived responsibility for death and serious injury. *There are risks with taking experimental drugs, but these are not what any reasonable person would sign up for*.


I'm sorry if I've got the wrong impression, but that's what your collective insistence that they have chosen this path and so should live with the consequences has led me too. And now you start on how much money they might make out of their suffering. What am I supposed to think? :roll:

If we were talking about minor side effects, I would agree with you. But this appears to be far more serious than that. Even if they were told there was a high risk of death, the company needs to be investigated and, if found guilty, the company punished. The victims should still get compensation, but taking into account whether it was reasonable for them to believe such an outcome was possible.


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

Karcsi said:


> The pharma company can expect an expensive law suit, I hope. As far as I know, whatever they signed, you cannot waived responsibility for death and serious injury. *There are risks with taking experimental drugs, but these are not what any reasonable person would sign up for*.


So are you saying then that the people who signed up for it are *un*reasonable people because they signed up for it?



Karcsi said:


> If we were talking about minor side effects, I would agree with you. But this appears to be far more serious than that. Even if they were told there was a high risk of death, the company needs to be investigated and, if found guilty, the company punished. The victims should still get compensation, but taking into account whether it was reasonable for them to believe such an outcome was possible.


Why does the company need to be investigated?
If the company DID tell them that there was a high risk of death, then that would make the testers even more greedy and/or stupid.
If the testers hadn't agreed to participate, the drug company wouldn't have given them drugs to test.
But they DID agree, so the company supplied them with the drugs.

And why the hell should the "victims" get compensation, when they willingly agreed to participate?
You're probably one of those people who'd sue McDonalds for spilling their hot coffee on yourself. :roll:

Rogue


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

I couldn't care less what reason they signed up for the trials, I'm going to presume it was to repay student loans and/or in the assumption they would be helping the development of a drug that would help others... I just hope they fully recover and people ( the drug developers and the guinea pigs) learn something from this.

I couldn't really give a toss whether they were paid or not, life is more precious then to argue about whether they should have known better.

We all should know better, and I guess now we do.


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

This was the first time it had been tested on humans.

Apparently the drug was previously only administered to rabbits and monkeys, and the men received a dose 500x lower than the animals.

It therefore brings up the argument for and against animal testing if we react so differently. 
I like the idea of testing drugs etc. on the scum of this Earth.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Rogue said:


> If the company DID tell them that there was a high risk of death, then that would make the testers even more greedy and/or stupid.


True. But I bet they didn't.


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

shelley said:


> Rogue said:
> 
> 
> > If the company DID tell them that there was a high risk of death, then that would make the testers even more greedy and/or stupid.
> ...


I'll bet they didn't either.
But probably because they didn't know.

Rogue


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Rogue said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Rogue said:
> ...


Or they knew, but didn't tell them.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

shelley said:


> Rogue said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...


Actually, I doubt that.

If what we're hearing is true, then the possibility of them being sued for causing harm to the testees means that they'd have to be stupid to give drugs to someone that they knew would cause them this amount of harm.

The fact that they caused no ill affects (that we've heard about) in animals would lead them to think that most humans would be OK.


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

This sort of testing is hardly a new thing. Being close to somebody involved in Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies I am told the patients are fully made aware of the risks involved and every step of the research has to abide by strict codes of practice. Because of these strict guidelines this sort of news doesn't make the headlines everyday.

Drugs take an average of 10-15 years of research before they are released to the market; research which requires huge amounts of investment. The pharma company was following the normal path of development, It'd be foolish of the company to knowingly put its patients at such high risks, risk lawsuits and ditching a project which it'd had already invested millions.

Testing on humans hardly started with these unfortunate souls but it's something which *needs* to be done. For those who have such a moral dilemma about how wrong this or animal testing is should simply refuse ANY medication should the worst happen to them.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Kell said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Rogue said:
> ...


I'm not claiming they did know - all I was saying was that it is ridiculous to claim that these people were told there was a *high risk *of death and that therefore they are greedy/ and or stupid to have taken part in the trial.


----------



## geewceeTT (Aug 7, 2005)

Im shocked at the lack of compassion by some members on here.
You bunch of jokers.


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

It's not a case of having a lack of compassion. If you read the title of the thread it states 'Would you play with your life for 2k?'. The answer to this, and to any amount on offer, is 'NO'.

I'd have compassion if a pre-approved drug caused injury and suffering to somebody, I'd have compassion if somebody was injured in a car crash, I have compassion for people starving in 3rd world countries. All these are through no fault or choice of the individual.

What I struggle to have compassion for is 4 people who willingly signed up to be paid 2 grand to test a drug. Not bundled into the back of a van at gunpoint, not tortured, not forced in any way ......THEY VOLUNTEERED!

And, people are talking as if they're dead......they're not. And, as said, they'll probably come out the other side and sue the arses off the company and make loads selling their story to the papers. It p'd me off to hear how quickly they were getting Solicitors involved, (sh*t, just snagged a nail on the keyboard then ~ note to self: must sue Dell in the morning! :? ).


----------



## geewceeTT (Aug 7, 2005)

auditt260bhp said:


> It p'd me off to hear how quickly they were getting Solicitors involved, (sh*t, just snagged a nail on the keyboard then ~ note to self: must sue Dell in the morning! :? ).


Great analogy....people close to death/you snagging a nail on your keyboard :roll:


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

Guess that one just went straight over. or through, your head then mate! :roll:


----------



## geewceeTT (Aug 7, 2005)

auditt260bhp said:


> Guess that one just went straight over. or through, your head then mate! :roll:


 :roll:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Rogue said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > The pharma company can expect an expensive law suit, I hope. As far as I know, whatever they signed, you cannot waived responsibility for death and serious injury. *There are risks with taking experimental drugs, but these are not what any reasonable person would sign up for*.
> ...


Only if we assume they were told that there was a high risk of death / serious injury. But then there is a question over their sanity / desperation and the enducement paid - because it questions the integrity of the pharma company, and therefore the legality of what they did.



Rogue said:


> Why does the company need to be investigated?
> If the company DID tell them that there was a high risk of death, then that would make the testers even more greedy and/or stupid.
> If the testers hadn't agreed to participate, the drug company wouldn't have given them drugs to test.
> But they DID agree, so the company supplied them with the drugs.
> ...


Two reasons: one, the way the test was carried out; two, the ethical consequences of offering large enducements to encourage people to take possible disproportionate amount of risk.



Rogue said:


> And why the hell should the "victims" get compensation, when they willingly agreed to participate?
> You're probably one of those people who'd sue McDonalds for spilling their hot coffee on yourself. :roll:
> 
> Rogue


If it is proven that the company is culpable legally in the way it conducted the test (whether it should have taken place in the first place, even) or if it misled the testers in any way, then yes the testers should be given compensation. However, that should be moderated in view of any partial fault on the testers side - e.g. they knew it was a higher risk.

No, I'm not the litigious sort, nor someone that thinks the world owes him a living. But I do hate to see a company "getting away with it". That's why I am vehemently against the premise that signing up for something absolves a company of its responsibilities - whether or not they knew or not what they were signing themselves up for.

However, I am also not too happy with the possibility of these testers receiving huge sums in compensation if they were warned of the consequences which came about. They must share some of the blame, but not to the extent that the company is pardoned for its part.


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

Kell said:


> I guess what I'm getting at is that when you sign up for something like this, you might expect side-effects to be a headache, or nausea, or maybe a rash. Not for you head to swell up to three times its usual size.


This is how they found Viagra, purely by chance of a side effect.


----------

