Fire

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/he...cancer.html?hp

This is shit and its shady and reeks of political stink just like half everything else our freedom entitles us to. So much could be gained from allowing this, not just from the individual taking the risk but from a scientific/testing point of view.

Nice killing a last hope for people with little to begin with. Favors and money baby. Piss on waking up the next day.

F22B Prelude

Supreme Court FTW

and if that don't work move to Europe

Fire

lol @ thread title edit

sorry :af:

sherwood

Are you stupid or something?

The problem with this country is the people living in it asking for something and then TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT. If there is enough need a drug will be allowed out to the public. And whats this shit about saving so many damn peoples lives anyway, we're focking born to die, deal with it you sentimental bastards.

example... if this went through you'd have so many people looking for miracle cures that would end up killing them it's not even funny, but you can't think about that. What is the point to approving drugs if you can use them pre-approval? it sucks.

Fire

No Im not stupid. Are you? What is the point in denying someone a possible treatment, which the results certainly could be considered part of the testing of the drug itself, to people that have exhausted every other option and will die? This isnt simple "taking advantage" like pulling a race card at the drop of a hat or the fact that some people are better off on welfare than having a job (thus not getting off welfare). This has valid possibilities for both science and the person in question. This isnt about moving ahead, this is about who owes who and who makes what.

Whats your problem anyways? Like you needed to be confrontational in the way you addressed me you cu*t. This is a matter of opinion and debating it is obviously something that is welcomed, otherwise I wouldnt have posted it.

edit: By the way if you think that just because there is a need for something that our government will provide it, you are off your rocker.

Anthony

I'd hardly call it political stink. There's a very valid reason to why they don't let people use experimental drugs. It's because since not all adverse side effects are known and people develop them they will sue. Why? Cause America is like that even if you sign a waiver people will try to find a way to sue because they are greedy. In addition what's the point of regulation if they can't regulate anything? I understand the issue with people with terminal illness and a possibility for cures but you can release a whole large can of worms just through uncontrolled prescription.

Fire

Lawsuits are definitely a problem. Proper paperwork can be in placed based on an individuals case. Its not uncontrolled prescription.

Almost everything has an extenuating circumstance. In this type of case you would have a ready made "lab rat" if you will. The testing has to work on a human level anyway. How often is it drugs are pulled because there is only so much human testing allowed in the first place? Then lawsuits are out the ying yang because people trying to prevent a problem from becoming terminal become worse off because the real test came after the drug was cleared for the public.

Obviously it would have to be a controlled can of worms.

sherwood

These treatments need to be tested. There is historical evidence of treatments and drugs being very fatal and dangerous. Just look at the Merck scandal from a few years back, now imagine if it were an untested drug, and it killed 100 times as many people, or the long term effects caused cancer.

Theres a reason these drugs need to be tested and it's just not a logical decision to bypass the whole system just to get to the end faster.

If nitrous wasn't tested and I strapped a 250 shot on my car just to pump it up because the inital results were positive do you think it would be a wise decision?

now. talk about improving the testing procedures, or combined government funding for drugs instead of requiring extensive lobbying and advertisement after the fact and I will agree with you. But I'm not one to RUSH A LIFE DECISION.

you live in a dream world where none of these drugs can do harm. I don't.

:edit:
I'm against the fact that you seem to be missing the point. Allowing people access to these drugs before they're aproved means that the approval process is more of a certification than a safeguard. There will be large numbers of people vieing for drugs which are unapproved and getting them, and DYING unnatural deaths.

IMPROVE THE TESTING SYSTEM, don't go all lord of the flies.

Anthony

The problem with this is the legal ramifications. You do years of testing to prevent the possible injury to human. It's like saying Hi I have a miracle cure but maybe 3 years down the line you'll die. It's a better safe than sorry or else we'd be pumping out drugs out the ying yang just to possibly cure people. I mean it's all fine and dandy for the beginning but what if you create an even worse disease through these cocktails like super aids or something. It's a better safe than sorry scenario, I know people are dying daily from lack of medication but are you willing to risk the whole ethics of a trade (yes it is unethical to prescribe medicine which may potentially lead to death or more illness due to unknown adverse effects).

aux

if im dying and want experimental shit i should be able to have em. close thread. any other opinion = stupid.