Should guys who did drug experiment get compensation?

[stars_gazing]

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.

[jayne67]

Totally agree Nimrod. We have to be grateful that there are people to do this for us. I'm sure that when they're told there may be side effects, no one thought for a moment that they may have been life threatening.

 

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.

[Twiglet]

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.

[garryn]

Another near entry to the Darwin awards.

[Cyclone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.