Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Government Politics

Testing Drugs on India's Poor 531

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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Testing Drugs on India's Poor

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Pff.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by metternich ( 888601 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @04:51PM (#14293888)
    In all seriousness though, it is the US poor who volunteer to praticipate in research studies here too. I have one friend who paid her way through college doing this.
  • WWII (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pao|o ( 92817 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @04:55PM (#14293928)
    I do recall that a lot of the medical advancements we are enjoying today are a result of the many barbaric experiments done by Nazi scientists on their prisoners back in WWII. So are the insights they gained from their immoral experiements bad enough that we shouldnt use it on moral grounds?
  • Re:Ethics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by d.valued ( 150022 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @04:55PM (#14293931) Journal
    This is an old story.. I believe I heard it on NPR more than half a year ago.

    There are certain upsides for the patients. Yes, they're risking their lives for the chance at health, but in return they are at least getting some medical care. If they're lucky some previously unknown ailment will disqualify them from the study, and get them into one which is more appropriate.

    As a lab rat without health insurance, most of my medical care has been through such studies. I get the meds I need to keep on breathing, as well as a shot at something which may make my life more bearable.
  • Re:I'm Fine With It (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, 2005 @04:58PM (#14293953)
    So you agree- givent he caste system they don't have any real choice at all.

    And yet, if it were up to people like you, you would deny them even this opportunity and make their lives even worse.

    It is people like you that would rather the poor stay poor rather then allow them any chance because of your own guilty conscience.

  • by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @04:58PM (#14293954) Homepage Journal
    "Not only are research costs low, but there is a skilled work force to conduct the trials," he said. In the rush to reap profits, Philpott cautions that drug companies may not be sensitive to how poverty can undermine the spirit of informed consent. "Individuals who participate in Indian clinical trials usually won't be educated. Offering $100 may be undue enticement; they may not even realize that they are being coerced," he said.

    "Doctors are easier to recruit for trials because they don't have to go through the same ethics procedures as their Western colleagues," Ecks said. "And patients ask fewer questions about what is going on."


    Hmm. There are obviously some ethical questions here, but I think that it is for the best. Cheaper trials means more research, and the tests are only conducted when it is almost certain to succeed. The US is much too stringent with medicine, because of lawsuits. People with shorter life expectancies don't care quite as much about the risks of testing drugs, and the sooner drugs are out there helping people, the better.

    Cue comments about how this is the most evil thing ever, and that nothing is as valuable as a human life (which is why, instead of buying christmas presents, you will donate to third world countries' medicine.)
  • by RhettLivingston ( 544140 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:00PM (#14293981) Journal

    In fact, this is one of the biggest problems in our current medical knowledgebase. Many important drug and poison studies have been conducted in India due to its unique mix of being technologically advanced enough to manage a study, structured enough to organize them, and having a large body of people willing to join them.

    The big downside is that India is not an ethnically diverse country. Thus, the results are not necessarily transferrable.

    Back in the '50s and '60s, the PCB studies were performed in India. PCBs were found to be highly toxic. It wasn't until the '70s and '80s that followup studies identified the fact that PCBs are vastly (as in 100x type vastly) more toxic to people of Indian and Japanese descent than to people of Caucasion and African descent. If the studies had been done in South America, America, Canada, or Europe, we'd probably still be using PCBs all over the place.

    It is critical for the further advancement of medicine that we move beyond our current statistical approach to medicine and studies and start defining which genetic and environmental factors are indications or contraindications for specific medicines. Many medicines kill some people and save others. Rather than tossing them aside, we must start learning to identify when they will kill and when they will save. That requires tests across diverse populations. India doesn't qualify.

  • by seanduffy ( 930895 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:04PM (#14294026) Homepage
    Sadly, abusing the underprivileged and poor for medical reasons occurs more frequently than one would think. For example, in addidtion to drug testing, during surgical residencies, most of the interns learn new procedures on the homeless or poor that in the hospital. Residents have to learn techniques somehow, and they are inevitably going to deliever sub-par results the first few times of doing something. Thus, the practice of using the underprivileged as "test-dummies" is unstated but widley accepted. Ideas for solutions to this moral dilemma?
  • Re:Wait (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:18PM (#14294147)
    Comment was a dig at PeTA. PeTA hates humans.
    http://www.stopanimaltests.com/ [stopanimaltests.com]

    If you want to be an animal rights activist, there is the legitimate organization called the ASPCA http://www.aspca.org/ [aspca.org]
    They have been around for over 130 years.

    PeTA is a bunch of wackjob veggie hippies that hates humans and are considered terrorists.
    http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/c a_arson_terrorist(8-7-03).htm/ [naiaonline.org]
    http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview. cfm/oid/21/ [activistcash.com]
  • Re:Wait (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:18PM (#14294152)
    Yeah it's all the corporations fault. If it wasn't for them doctors would go out of their way to make medicines that worked without needing to be tested on animals or humans, right?

    It's interesting to see that the same people who support the ecoterrorism by the Animal Liberation Front which has crippled our ability to test drugs on animals are now complaining about the ethical issues of testing drugs on people in India. If only we lived in one big socialistic world, people wouldn't get sick and need drugs, right?

    It is obviously the corporations fault. Their love of profits make them test life-saving drugs on people instead of doing the decent thing and going out of business (giving their drugs to noone). If only they knew that their profits are what make people sick in the world.
  • Re:Karma (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brjndr ( 313083 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:32PM (#14294258)
    Don't lecture us, we Indians invented Karma.

    Slashdot just profits off of our idea, and hides behing their "patents are evil" sudo-ideology.
  • Drug Patents (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:33PM (#14294263) Homepage
    Now, pharmaceutical companies can rest assured they won't lose profits to a domestic market, and India is suddenly a profitable location for performing the expensive tests required for Food and Drug Administration clearance of any drug.

    This is a very interesting statement. One part of patent theory is that commercial organizations won't invest in developing new products unless they have a guarantee that someone else can't just copy their product and sell it. It will be interesting to see if abiding by drug patents promotes drug manufacturing and research to move to India, or if it means that they can't afford the patent costs and nobody can afford drugs there anymore.

  • by ThinkFr33ly ( 902481 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:36PM (#14294291)
    I fully understand the importance of the FDA. It is extremely important to the safety of the American public and its doctors to have a reliable and unbiased source of information regarding drugs.

    One could argue that the market could regulate these drugs. If a drug company release a drug that did serious damage to 20% of the people taking it, this information would spread quickly and soon most people would stop taking that drug. But I would argue it is far better to have to undergo the rigorous testing the FDA puts most of the drugs through before they're made public so the dangers are known before it's available to most people.

    On the other hand, I think there is a lot to be said for making the FDA an "informational" body only. In other words, it would do the same testing it does now, and all drugs would have to be submitted before release just as they are now, but regardless of the outcome of that testing the drug companies could make that drug publicly available. Before taking a drug, or before a doctor prescribes a drug, this database would be consulted to see the dangers and see how effective it is. The patients and doctors could then make their own decision as to whether or not this drug is good or bad.

    If I'm dying of cancer I should be able to try anything I damn well please... in fact, if I've got a bad cold I should be able to try anything I damn well please. If I'm stupid and try the pharmacological equivalent of rat poison, then so be it... but the government shouldn't be able to limit my options.
  • Re:Pff.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:37PM (#14294300) Homepage Journal
    I would say a guinea pig IS a real job. More productive than... flipping burgers at McDonalds. More noble than a crack dealer. Just because said person didn't do what you did, doesn't make it any less worthwhile.
  • blessing and curse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jbeaupre ( 752124 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:41PM (#14294342)
    Lack of diversity during certain phases is a good thing. It improves the signal to noise ratio in the statistics. It's why they use identical white mice. It's a bad move, when you extrapolate. Which is what someone did in your example. Luckily they erred on the safe side. Still, a good study should move from the narrow to the broad.

    In general, humans are pretty genetically uniform. But some crucial differences do pop up. Heck, think of testing something as benign as dairy products. Most of the world can't drink milk.

    Fun bit o' trivia: a significant number of chemicals that cause cancer in rats, don't in mice. And visa versa. Makes you wonder how reliable those tests are extrapolated to humans!
  • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @06:06PM (#14294542)
    Sometimes it makes me wish we'd let the South win the civil war. They could live in backward redneck-land and the rest of the country could get on with evolving the species.

    Outstanding! One is rarely treated to such a display of irony: a sweeping, uninformed, all-inclusive condemnation of a huge swath of the country, contending that they, what... are losers because they make sweeping, uninformed judgements about things?

    I don't suppose you've met any of the loony hardcore Catholics from New England? Or perhaps some Mormons from the upper-Rockies area? Or maybe some urban Baptists from, say, Philadelphia? Or perhaps some addled-brained Wiccan Nitwits from Seattle? Or maybe some Orthodox Jews from downtown NY,NY? There are people with retro-silly sensibilities all over this country, and always have been. New England is still infested with Puritans. No amount of MTV or porn spam seems to cure it.

    On the other hand, I've met some of the most literate, gracious, science-informed, fundy-allergic, down-to-earth people in the world south of the Mason-Dixon Line. On balance, they're often considerably more rational and forward-thinking than some of the culture-rot-population I've met lurking in a lot of the northern cities. I'm just as tired of urbane, metrosexual pseudo-intellectuals who think that hydrogen is a new energy source being hidden by the government as you are of the hillbilly that thinks he's been abducted by aliens because he drank too much cough syrup.
  • by karuna ( 187401 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @06:14PM (#14294599) Homepage
    I have funny experience with Indian medicines.

    When I was in India like 10 years ago I bought eye drops against conjunctivitis called Itone or something. They worked so well that I bought like 20 bottles for my friends with similar problems. I was a little perplexed why some bottles were marked with red letters "Physician sample". I returned to Europe and after 3 years I saw a poster in a local pharmacy which advertised a new, revolutionary drug that was just released, the same Itone I had been using for several years.

    My wife developed some stomach problems in India. She visited a doctor who gave her some medicine that took away all problems in one day. In Europe the same stomach problem returned but the doctors were horrified when she told what kind of medicine she was taking in India. They prescribed some other treatment but that was not very effective and it took 2 months to completely cure her illness. I guess the European doctors were not so experienced in tropical diseases.

    I know of another person who was treated by some Indian fakir who gave him ash from yagyas (sacrificial fire). Supposedly harmless thing that was simply blessed by his mantras and yantras. Nevertheless it was very effective and made the person very peaceful. Before this person was suffering from the bipolar disorder but he didn't want to take drugs because they made him dull. But simple ash worked so good for him. Long story short, after several years it turned out that the fakir was mixing very powerful psychotropic drug with ash and giving to him. Well, in the West it would be considered cheating but in India who cares if it did well to the patient. And if someone dies in the process that is not a big problem, there are already so many people in India that one person more or less doesn't make any difference.
  • by the arbiter ( 696473 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @06:21PM (#14294663)
    You're advocating letting the stupid/desperate/uneducated/terrifed/gullible become prey for the first unscrupulous doctor or drug company whose path they cross.

    In a society where every member goes to medical school and has access to the same infomation that drug companies routinely supress (Vioxx, anyone?) your idea would be a great one. As it stands, though, I agree with the sentiment that what you're advocating is "libertarian hogwash".
  • by Some Random Username ( 873177 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @06:23PM (#14294678) Journal
    Seriously, nothing you are saying makes any sense. What suicide bomber, is supposed to see the reason in what argument? And who said anything about the value of human life at all, much less in comparison with other animals lives?
  • by spun ( 1352 ) * <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Monday December 19, 2005 @07:08PM (#14295023) Journal
    I for one see the point you are making here. PETA is for the ethical treatment of animals. An animal was blown up in a fairly unethical way, thus this falls under PETAs charter. The fact that they have this charter in no way presumes they have any less respect for humans, but there are plenty of other groups already focused on the ethical treatment of humans. The fact that they issued this letter in no way proves that PETA would condone a person being blown up in the same way, but that isn't their focus. Again, other groups are already working on these issues, and quite probably most PETA members are also members of one or more of these groups and therefore see no need for PETA, as a group, to get involved with the human issues of terrorism.

    I have never been a member of PETA myself as I do not personally believe in some of their methods, but as a social activist and semi-radical myself I have known quite a few. Most are perfectly reasonable people, at least for activist circles (whether activists themselves are generally reasonable people is another topic entirely, so just shut yer yaps, you anti-hippy neocon fascist freaks ;) About the worst I could say about the worst of them (having lived with a few) is that they generally smell bad (this coming from a nerd, and we aren't known for our hygiene)and are anti social, at least to the extent that they never do their own dishes, refuse to participate in social activities, and pay bills late. Anti-human? Sort of. But not in a 'kill all humans' kind of way, more like 'you all depress me so much I'm going off for a good long sulk.'

    Anyways, Some Random Username, you didn't deserve to get marked troll there. You were raising valid points. But the stereotype of the human hating PETA member is a common one, and a great example of industry counter-propaganda.
  • Re:I'm Fine With It (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alienw ( 585907 ) <alienw.slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday December 19, 2005 @08:02PM (#14295346)
    Some people work harder than others and should reasonably expect to be compensated to a greater degree.

    Let's look at a CEO of a large company who is doing an extremely poor job (let's say the GM guy). He makes about 500 times the salary of an average employee. If he is fired or quits, he will get a huge golden parachute (something like $5 million). Are you saying he works 500x harder than an average GM employee? How would that even be possible?

    I think in a perfect society everyone would work as hard as they were able and everyone would receive equally.

    Since most people never work as hard as they are able to, this system would be inherently unfair. In any fair system, people are compensated by job performance and job difficulty. A good system should additionally guarantee that everyone will receive the very basic human necessities (housing, food, healthcare), if they are unable to work.

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...