Should guys who did drug experiment get compensation?

[Cyclone 10]

They have been offered a £5,000 payment with a 'no fault' clause if they agree not to sue the company.

 

The drugs company had a duty to carry out every possible check to ensure that the drug would not cause serious side effects in humans before the trial. IF the company was negligent in any way, then of course these people should be entitled to compensation.

 

If the company was not at fault then they shouldn't get anything above the £2,000 payment. But, it's sounding to me like the pharmaceutical company is hiding something.

 

the initial inquiry has found no fault with the procedures. Primate tests went as expected, there was no reason to think that the minute dose given to these guys would have such an adverse affect. They probably just don't want the expense of going to court, so it's easier to give them 5k each to shut up and go away.

[stars_gazing 10]

Which is exactly what I would do in that position. This way the company seems to care about the upset to the people & their families. However, the company does not owe them - hence the "no fault clause". I am completely with the company on this one. If they know what's good for them, the men should take it - they don't stand a chance in court.

 

They have been offered a £5,000 payment with a 'no fault' clause if they agree not to sue the company.

[JonJParr 10]

Whilst I'm sure that the majority of us would agree that most people who take part in medical drug trials are in it purely for the financial incentive [and as such should be prepared for unpleasant side-effects] I'm quite certain that these men weren't told that the drug could be potentially lethal. £2000 certainly isn't enough for those sorts of risks! After all death is far more than just "unpleasant" [which could be applied to itching or mild headaches] - it's quite absolute.

 

However, as most of them were incapacitated for such a long time and the effects were disproportionate to the remuneration that they initially received I feel that by principle they should be compensated for the discomfort and emotional distress that it has caused them. Large pharmaceuticals companies will eventually make millions from the mainstream introduction of such drugs and should be made to compensate those who have suffered so badly during the drugs development especially when they weren't told that this could happen. Whether the side-effect was foreseen or not these people were almost killed and the large corporation responsible should be held to account.

[drolnhoj 15]

You assume the tests went "severly wrong" - imo they went right. The company needed to know that the drug would produce these side effects, so that they could go back to the drawing board. The company owes these individuals £2,000 as agreed and nothing more. The men will probably make a lot of money doing interviews, selling their story to papers and if they had good management, could continue to make money from the press for years.

 

Just bad wording on my part. I agree they didn't go wrong - they proved that there was a problem with the drug under a particular set of circumstances which is one of the reasons for doing such tests. And I agree that they were payed for doing the tests. All I am saying is perhaps there needs to be a method of further compensating people who suffer severe adverse reactions or otherwise we may find ourselves in a position where nobody wants to do these type of tests. By the way i am not saying that I am right, I am just stating a personal opinion

[BoroughGal 10]

Ok then, so if they did not think the risk was there, are they doing it for the benefit of other possible users of the drug, or for greed. I can't possibly think for a moment that when they undertook the trials, they were doing it for the sake of mankind, although as I originally said, until the controversy/risk about this particular experiment is made transparent, I still think its wrong to talk about compensation.

 

It doesn't really concern you what their motivation is. It's still benefitting you and others. And they deserve to report on any side effects they experience, without almost dying for a measly £2000 - in my humble opinion. I'm not one for the compensation ethic, and am not really commenting on that side of it. But I do think (as per usual) people are being harsh about people in a terrible situation.

[jayne67 10]

It doesn't really concern you what their motivation is. It's still benefitting you and others. And they deserve to report on any side effects they experience, without almost dying for a measly £2000 - in my humble opinion. I'm not one for the compensation ethic, and am not really commenting on that side of it. But I do think (as per usual) people are being harsh about people in a terrible situation.

 

As I said in my original post BoroughGal, I truly sympathise with these guys, and with their families for this terrible event, and as the question was originally about compensation, rather than the motivation, I think my previous point was quite valid. The point I made about the motivation, was a follow up on a post by another forum user. I would never put my life at risk, for a measly £2000 or otherwise, and while I agree with you that, yes ultimatley, it is for the benefit of other people, is it worth risking your life. I mean, there are people out there who have to take drugs, in order just have a chance at life, and which are not known a lot about, but if the user suffers any side effects in order to try and get well, then its tough. These people had a choice.

[JonJParr 10]

As I said in my original post BoroughGal, I truly sympathise with these guys, and with their families for this terrible event, and as the question was originally about compensation, rather than the motivation, I think my previous point was quite valid. The point I made about the motivation, was a follow up on a post by another forum user. I would never put my life at risk, for a measly £2000 or otherwise, and while I agree with you that, yes ultimatley, it is for the benefit of other people, is it worth risking your life. I mean, there are people out there who have to take drugs, in order just have a chance at life, and which are not known a lot about, but if the user suffers any side effects in order to try and get well, then its tough. These people had a choice.

 

I agree with you that these people who took part in the drugs trial had a choice about whether to take part in it but I think that the point BoroughGal is trying to make is that it wasn't an 'informed' choice. The men who took part were of course lured by a £2000 cash incentive but it's highly unlikely that they were told the drug could be deadly. Even if such severe side-effects were unforeseen by the pharmaceuticals company they should feel duty bound to acknowledge corporate responsibility and compensate those affected.

[jayne67 10]

I agree with you that these people who took part in the drugs trial had a choice about whether to take part in it but I think that the point BoroughGal is trying to make is that it wasn't an 'informed' choice. The men who took part were of course lured by a £2000 cash incentive but it's highly unlikely that they were told the drug could be deadly. Even if such severe side-effects were unforeseen by the pharmaceuticals company they should feel duty bound to acknowledge corporate responsibility and compensate those affected.

 

Agreed, and thats why I have always said that the outcome of this will depend entirely on what these guys were told, and whether or not this company acted legitimatley, and the clauses of the 'contract' that I assume they must have all read and signed. I don't want to sound disrespectful to either the guys or their families, or to any one on the forum come to that, and my original question was not intended to draw criticism to the motive for their decision, just the fact that they had agreed.

[BoroughGal 10]

The only problem I can see with this is that any big drugs company is automatically going to have it drawn up into every contract that there is a possibility of every kind of outcome - that's back covering.

 

But I'd put more trust in them than to belive that I might die. And it seems the company didn't expect the results either.

 

I think, in this case, that the people are entitled to some sort of compensation, unless someone has outlined, in great detail, what might happen. If someone can get a big payout for falling over a paving slab in the street then I don't begrudge those poor b*ggars a single penny.

[Teabag 10]

The people concerned were volunteers but the drug company may not have followed procedure. This was a large group to administer an untested drug. The amount administered and the lack of previous trials seem to favour a good claim for compensation.

Many ex servicemen who were poisoned and crippled by MOD experiments are still trying to gain damages for terrible experiments they were subjected to - hope they win justice

[fnkysknky 10]

Of course it would have said somewhere in the paperwork that there was a chance of death (however small) - there is no way on this planet that they wouldn't have that base covered. If you look through the data sheets that come with medicines the majority of them mention death as a side effect.

[Cyclone 10]

The people concerned were volunteers but the drug company may not have followed procedure. This was a large group to administer an untested drug. The amount administered and the lack of previous trials seem to favour a good claim for compensation.

Many ex servicemen who were poisoned and crippled by MOD experiments are still trying to gain damages for terrible experiments they were subjected to - hope they win justice

 

3 people, that's not a large trial. Doses of 1000th of what had been given to primates, and the full set of primate trials conducted.

 

Sounds pretty much like all the bases were covered to me. Obviously when doing the first human trials of a drug, there are going to be a lack of previous human trials

 

As to whether they were informed of the risk. If they signed the contract and didn't read it properly, then tough, that's just stupid when agreeing to perform medical tests.

 

Of course the company didn't expect the result, they couldn't ethically perform a test where they expect people to be hurt. Previous trials and predictions all indicated that the drug should be safe. That's what the test is for, to check if it's true. As far as I can see, no one was mislead about anything, and it all appears to have followed procedure, thus these men are due no compensation.