2 ms·
Liability. This is a perverse incentive structure, but it's not an easy problem. If people die due to your inaction, you are not liable. If people die due to
by itishappy 3y ago
Liability. This is a perverse incentive structure, but it's not an easy problem.
If people die due to your inaction, you are not liable.
If people die due to your actions, you very much are.
Even a minor issue can end up being harmful. If you have a cancer treatment that's safe and effective, but you haven't fully vetted it and it turns out to be less effective than another available option, then your drug would cause harm.
It's safer to test these things, otherwise you get sued, go to jail, your company folds, and nobody gets cancer treatments anymore.
- mschuster91 3y agoI think it should be allowed that, for people with illnesses that end up inevitably fatal in a high percent range, they be allowed to get early access to experimental medication once it's passed some sort of verification. Right now, only those very rich have that chance, they pay the pharma companies (and a host of outright quacks)... I'd love to see cancer medication being accessible for everyone, no matter the amount of money on their bank account.
- konschubert 3y agoThis is my point. We should try to change this. Streamlining clinical trials would be a first step.
- epistasis 3y agoIf you have an effective way to streamline trials, I think people would be very very interested in it, regardless of the liability argument (of which I am very very skeptical). Already trials are usually pushed to be as fast as possible, because the patent clock runs out on treatments, so a faster answer is usually the best answer to achieve for investors.