Ethical issue: Who gets experimental Ebola drug?
 

"If the Americans had this serum all the time, why didn't they send it to us Africans to help save lives?" said Winston Ojukutu Macauley, a social commentator in Sierra Leone"

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The use of an experimental drug to treat two Americans diagnosed with Ebola is raising ethical questions about who gets first access to unproven new therapies for the deadly disease.

But some health experts fear debate over extremely limited doses will distract from tried-and-true measures to curb the growing outbreak — things like more rapidly identifying and isolating the sick."


http://news.yahoo.com/ethical-issue-...-politics.html


.

Hold a lottery - like tickets to see Led Zep at the O2 arena.

Or stage a 'Hunger Games' style competition - winner gets the Ebola drug.

Most likely they would want to test in as controlled environment as possible. Due to how bad it's getting over there, they probably felt there is no way to do a controlled test. Then two Americans get it and are shipped back to our advanced hospital system and not some tents in a field.. Well presto they now have adequate situation to do controlled tests with a limited supply of experimental drugs.

DING DING DING For The Win!

If the Americans had some drugs to extend the lives of people with AIDS, why don't they send them for free ?
And in this case, why should the americans pay for these drugs while the africans get them for free ?

:2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

I also read that this drug is very temperamental. It has to be kept frozen and then thawed right before it's given to the patient.

Since most of the outbreaks are out in the bush, and locals view hospitals and health care professionals as the devil in disguise, it would be extremely hard if not impossible to keep and administer the medicine properly.

a fucked up world in fucked up times...

You have to be sick in the first place to get the drug. Maybe at first you should have lottery about who gets ebola?

Well, America gives drugs for free and also heavily discounted. Also, you could ask why America uses shitloads of money to bomb some places those you cannot even pinpoint from the map? Not, that I would be very judgemental about that, but just asking if the money is the concern.

One of the main reasons (besides being shitty idea in the first place) why Soviet Union collapsed, was the amount of money it put into military and into espionage.

if there's a limited supply, makes sense to test it in lab conditions.

Time to buy tobacco stocks... its made of Nicotine.

Limited supply? It hasn't any real supply, because it isn't even ment to be supplied. It is experimental drug.

no, things have been fairly consistent through out our entire existence actually.

Often the footage from Africa on ebola includes scenes of infirmary tents held up with tree limbs. Doubt you can find many laboratory conditions.
Evening news the other day said there was something like 50 doctors for a population of millions there.

So if they had sent it and the drug didn't work people would be bitching about the Americans using untested treatment on africans.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it will be easy or cheap to reproduce.