The company says it denied Jacob because it worried that unsafe results could taint the reputation of the new drug and hold back research.

But isn't the point of testing drugs to see whether the results are good or not?

I see both sides of this. One, I think people should be able to get any drug they can pay for. The FDA takes waaaaay to long approving life-saving drugs. Two, the drug company has to cover their butt's in today's lawsuit happy climate. It is a double edged sword.

Very true.

Then again, though, this company got sued for not providing the drug, so it seems like they can't win

"Should we just take away the need for a lawsuit all together, and allow access to any terminally-ill patient willing to pay for experimental treatment?"

I think if they and their family sign a contract that states that they and their family will not sue the company for bad results, it would protect the company.

It seems here, though, that it was the profitablity of the drug that the drug company was protecting, not the ability to be sued for bad results.

"I think people should be able to get any drug they can pay for. The FDA takes waaaaay to long approving life-saving drugs."

I agree. I think if people are presented with accurate risks of medication, and they want to take it, they should be able to.

I'm with you ladies. I see both sides of the situation. I do feel like the company could provide all kinds of clauses making them not liable if something does happen, but that doesn't mean they would win in court and it wouldn't correct the potential damage to their reputation.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Oh, and look who is extra diamondly sparkly as of a minute ago thanks to the bigfoot guess who!

oooh, good points Jill and kim

Yay GS!

Oh, congratulations!!

I don't know the details of this case, so I'm not entirely confident in my opinion. However, it seems like a judge shouldn't be allowed to force the company to give out a drug they don't want to give out. It doesn't really matter who the drug is for.

On a side-note, the FDA really makes me mad. They half-ass everything they do and don't require very thorough testing of a drug before they approve it. So there are all these potentially dangerous drugs on our market that people trust because the FDA approved it. I think we need to get rid of the FDA.

Thank you, Thank you! There are so many people to thank. First, my agent.....

Congratulations GS! You're just a couple days behind me

CONGRATS all y'all!

Congrats, GS. Rainbow looks great in diamonds!

Thank you! She is a diamond type of girl!

Congrats, diamond girl!

Thank you!

I have a friend who is terminally ill and an experimental drug not yet approved is his last hope - I would hate to see this chance denied to anyone.

i can understand the company's apprehension about allowing the teen to take the drug - seeing as how they want the FDA to approve the use of the medication - but i guess we don't know the whole story do we. we don't know for sure how it was communicated to the family if the child could participate and then to find out that he couldn't. i think that if there is really a case that he was told that he could be included - and then they backed out - then that's reason for the govt to get involved -but otherwise - it's just a bad situation. i can only imagine what the family is going through - hoping that there's SOMETHING that their child can take to make his quality of life better.