Changes to Human Testing Regulations.
Loosen restrictions, or not
0
Holoofyoistu
The Messenger
As we all know it is incredibly difficult for companies who are developing new drugs to get FDA approval to test their products on humans. So here is my question to you, should the FDA loosen regulations on human trials of drugs that could potentially cure common, life threatening diseases such as cancer or AIDS.
0
I don't know. I've read enough stories of the ilk to have a firm belief that the pharmaceutical companies would put a stop to any potential solutions to major illnesses that gain them a lot of money.
I think there needs to be less of a monopoly on chemicals for medical use more than there needs to be a loosening on the rules for human testing.
I think there needs to be less of a monopoly on chemicals for medical use more than there needs to be a loosening on the rules for human testing.
0
devsonfire
3,000,000th Poster
Well, I don't know. On one side, if they did, it could help the development of new drugs that can cure many incurable diseases (I don't know if experimenting on human would help them much though).
On the other hand, some irresponsible people may use the regulation for the wrong purposes. I mean, there's always an advantage or disadvantage when a new regulation is being introduced.
Personally, I'm fine with how things works now. I mean, while I do feel sorry for the people that have incurable diseases, I believe we have come to an era where many things can be done without experimenting on human being. I don't know, it's just my personal opinion.
@EcchiGaijin: Can I just ask why you think a monopoly in chemical use for medical purpose is not really necessary?
On the other hand, some irresponsible people may use the regulation for the wrong purposes. I mean, there's always an advantage or disadvantage when a new regulation is being introduced.
Personally, I'm fine with how things works now. I mean, while I do feel sorry for the people that have incurable diseases, I believe we have come to an era where many things can be done without experimenting on human being. I don't know, it's just my personal opinion.
@EcchiGaijin: Can I just ask why you think a monopoly in chemical use for medical purpose is not really necessary?
1
Without a doubt they should loosen the restrictions. It isn't forced testing, so if they can get people who are willing to be tested on then it is no longer an ethical issue. It was the person's choice to take the risk. Really the lack of freedoms we have the right to exercise for a "free" country astounds me. Freedom means you can be self destructive if given the choice.
0
devsonfire wrote...
Well, I don't know. On one side, if they did, it could help the development of new drugs that can cure many incurable diseases (I don't know if experimenting on human would help them much though).On the other hand, some irresponsible people may use the regulation for the wrong purposes. I mean, there's always an advantage or disadvantage when a new regulation is being introduced.
Personally, I'm fine with how things works now. I mean, while I do feel sorry for the people that have incurable diseases, I believe we have come to an era where many things can be done without experimenting on human being. I don't know, it's just my personal opinion.
@EcchiGaijin: Can I just ask why you think a monopoly in chemical use for medical purpose is not really necessary?
I don't know what "specific" monopoly he's talking about but...
[youtube]http://youtu.be/qSjGouBmo0M.*?[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtu.be/kUpgfARGmXs.*?[/youtube]
The first or second video may be what he is referring too. If it's something else, I would like to know as well.
OT: I don't particularly have a stance either way on this topic, I never thought about this before now. I would have to know more about both sides of the argument before I form an opinion.
