Medicine should not be proven 100% safe before released to the market

Selected Version - Version 2 (Current Version) : 22 Jan 2012 | 12:35 | NADIA999

<< Older version | Newer version >>

All versions

Key

  • Text coloured Greenhas been added snce the previous version
  • Text marked red and striked-throughhas been deleted

Changes from Version 1 to Version 2

On the point: A balance needs to be struck between the ready need for a medicine and amount of research put into it

[quote=Point three] The problem with trying to test a drug on as representative/large a sample as possible/plausible is that , many patients who could be helped with the use of the test-drug are deprived in the meantime. Lives that could have been saved are lost$1   
The other issue is that the longer a study is stretched in the hope of maximizing the accuracy of results, the more funds are needed to fuel research. If a study takes too long, funds can be shut midway and the medicine even if it is very useful never makes it to the shelves of a pharmacy. [/quote]

How exhaustive(in terms of time and money) a testing process should be is, contingent upon:
(A) What the test-drug is for?
(i)is it a fatal disease?
(ii) Is it for a chronic(long term) or acute(fast-acting)?
(B) How many people can potentially be helped?
(C) Is the drug a cure?
(i)Is it a complete cure?
(ii) Does it activate other drugs/chemicals/enzymes which act as a cure?
(D) What are the side effects?
(i) Are sideeffects worth risking?
(E) Are there any withdrawal symptoms?
(F) Is the drug administered in small regulated doses over a long period of time?
(G) Will the effectiveness of the drug be depleted if patients do not complete the prescription?
(H) Is it affordable?
(I) Are similar alternatives already available in the market?

A cough medicine need not be very potent, it also should not adversely affect major organs or create blod clots. A cough medicine should be mild and must in no case, directly cause death. A medicine to be taken by those in last few stages of cancer can however include fatality as a side-effect.

Yes, because...

 

No, because... A balance needs to be struck between the ready need for a medicine and amount of research put into it

Point three
The problem with trying to test a drug on as representative/large a sample as possible/plausible is that , many patients who could be helped with the use of the test-drug are deprived in the meantime. Lives that could have been saved are lost.

The other issue is that the longer a study is stretched in the hope of maximizing the accuracy of results, the more funds are needed to fuel research. If a study takes too long, funds can be shut midway and the medicine even if it is very useful never makes it to the shelves of a pharmacy.

 

How exhaustive(in terms of time and money) a testing process should be is, contingent upon: (A) What the test-drug is for? (i)is it a fatal disease? (ii) Is it for a chronic(long term) or acute(fast-acting)? (B) How many people can potentially be helped? (C) Is the drug a cure? (i)Is it a complete cure? (ii) Does it activate other drugs/chemicals/enzymes which act as a cure? (D) What are the side effects? (i) Are sideeffects worth risking? (E) Are there any withdrawal symptoms? (F) Is the drug administered in small regulated doses over a long period of time? (G) Will the effectiveness of the drug be depleted if patients do not complete the prescription? (H) Is it affordable? (I) Are similar alternatives already available in the market?

A cough medicine need not be very potent, it also should not adversely affect major organs or create blod clots. A cough medicine should be mild and must in no case, directly cause death. A medicine to be taken by those in last few stages of cancer can however include fatality as a side-effect.

 
22 February 2011