Slashdot Mirror
Testing Drugs on India's Poor
theodp writes to tell us Wired is reporting that a lot of medical research firms are using India's poor as a hot test bed. From the article: "The sudden influx of drug companies to India resembles the gold rush frontier, according to Sean Philpott, managing editor of The American Journal of Bioethics. 'Not only are research costs low, but there is a skilled work force to conduct the trials'"
This very moment, clear she 3ouldn't show that FreeBSD You get distracted people's faces is Are about 7000/5 Notorious OpenBSD problems that I've prima donnas, and official GNAA irc
What ever happened to requesting a grant these days? God forbid she actually has to WORK to EARN that money. Gasp...NO! She must be too good for "Blue Collar" huh.
God damn! What happend to work ethic in this country?
Life is not for the lazy.
Remember folks,
Poor folks' lives are always CHEAP. Never forget this maxim.
CHEAP lives = CHEAP drugs.
It is OK to waste a few cheap lives in order to save many RICH lives.
That is how the world works.
Greed is Good(TM)
Fool. The issue at hand here is that these people are poor and vulnerable. Testing drugs on them is abusive. Maybe you failed to pick up the point that this is exploitation, and without the dehabilitating poverty, these Indians would never consider being part of the research program.
And perhaps you missed the point where testing on animals in the US is now more expensive than testing on humans in India. How could it have gotten this way?
I'm sure you'll try to explain that it has something to do with evil corporations and profits and how they don't care about human suffering. You'll say it has nothing to do with the insane animal rights movement that has shutdown our ability to test cheaply on animals. You'll finish with several expletives because that is how you think you need to talk to people who are beneath you. In the end you'll be happy that you have resolved the conflict between animal testing and human testing without having to acknowledge why one of those is needed.
Is it better for you to have no drugs than for them to have to be tested on animals or humans? Is that the only way you won't feel like a hypocrite?
And to the second poster:
And exactly why are people getting sick? Nothing to do with McDonalds no of course not. Philip Morris - great bunch of folks. And testing on Indians - it's OK to test on them, if the medicines are saving lives? What about meds that help you digest that McDonalds? Is it ok to test THAT shit on them? Who cares if the first batch killed a few dozen, as long as you can keep chowing down and popping that pill to avoid heartburn. While you drive away in your American made SUV, spewing out more toxins, making me sick. God damn.
First of all, I never said that it was acceptable to test on India's poor. I was noting how the animal rights movement has made it impossible for a drug company by testing on animals. While the evil corporations seem to always be the perfect target for arguments about any social evil in this world, perhaps you should look inward and discover the real reasons. Give me a solution:
1. You test on animals, then animals suffer.
2. If you can't test on animals then you have to test on humans.
3. If you can't test on humans, then you can't produce drugs. Thousands or millions of people suffer.
The *only* ones who will ever agree to testing, Indian or American, are those who are very poor. Unless you want to conduct a social experiment where people are randomly drafted and forced to take drug treatments, the poor or animals will always be used in testing.
Personally, I would prefer testing continues on animals. But as long as you continue blaming corporations and ignoring the real cause of the India drug tests nothing will ever change. But feel free to give a solution. I haven't heard one yet.
Oh, and by the way, I have driven my car less than 100 miles in the last 5 months. I walk an average of 4 miles a day. And I can't remember the last time I ate at McDonald's. Nice try on scapegoating me.
> The US/FDA COULD refuse to accept or deny the right to sale to any drug that is tested without adhering to the same restrictions/rules that they would have to in the US. Test subjects would still be cheaper, but at least there would be incentive for treating these people decently.
An incentive for treatingpeople decently would be nice, but seeing how the US is outsourcing its torture, surely outsourcing its drug testing is rather benign, don't you think? At least with randomized trials you have a 50% chance of getting a drug that may help your condidtion, whereas once you - or someone with a similar sounding name - is suspected as a terrorist you seem to have a 100% chance of getting fucked.
no taxation without representation!