"HIV patients 'need drug lifeline'" in BBC News states that a new drug can save HIV patients's life and money that they have to pay for the cost of drug because this drug can help them expand their life, and it is very cheap. Although a quarter of people who start taking this drug died in the first few weeks because of their weaken immune system, in long term the drug is very good to prevent the death. However, the problem is that people who need it cannot access it; the amount of it is not enough for every patient.
This is a good news; although some people cannot access it, they have more chance and more hope to continue their lives. When the scientists know how to make it, they can produce it more and more, and the cost will be cheaper. However, now people may try to get it by using money and power, so the international organization should be in charge of this situation. They may set the rule to give the drug for people who are going to die before other patients. What do you think about this solution? Do you have other solutions? Also, what do you think if you are the patient, will you take this drug? Because the risk of death from the drug is very high, I would like to know your reasons.
References
HIV patients 'need drug lifeline'. (2010, March 28). BBC News. Retrieved March 30, 2010 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8589959.stm
As I remember a few year ago, the representative of WHO in Thailand was forced to remove from the office by WHO because he warned Thai government to consider carefully about giving up medicine’s property right to exchange for selling goods in the free trade area agreement (FTA) between the US and Thailand. If the agreement put in place, Thai people will buy expensive medicine. Therefore, I do not think the international organization like WHO will make this issue possible. In my opinion, if I were the patient , I will do nothing except restraint my mind to think about good things. I do not want be a guinea rat with the medicine that have not received final approve yet. And the results of the experiment show that more people die than alive.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be an ethics topic. However, Ann, why is allocating the drug to the dying patient first right? Could you give reasons to support this allocation scheme?
ReplyDeleteIn this case, I am in favor of the utilitarian argument. We should distribute this drug by evaluating the possibility of survival of the patients and distribute it to the most promising ones first. Since this drug is not widely available, we still need to consider it as scrace resource. We should use it as most effective as possible to help as many people as possible.
If I was a patient, whether I use it or not would depends. If I lost all hope of survival, this drug was my last straw, I would use it at any cost of risk. However, if it is still hopeful, I would let other less hopeful patient take it first.
I think that we should give the drug for the dying patients first because they are going to die soon; they don't have time to wait for; but the patients who have more possibility to survive don't get it at that time, maybe they still be alive.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with you that we have to efficiently allocate the drug. If we know that the dying patients cannot expand their life, even if they get the drug, we should not waste it; but it's very difficult to decide and say that the drug cannot help this patient.
It sounds I was talking garbage with full of inconsistency again. Ann's allocating scheme is much better in this case. Since taking this drug is quite risky, people who are not in the final stage might not be very willing to take it, as Mod has said. Furthermore, checking the efficiency of the drug on patients seems unpractical. As Ann's has pointed out, "it's very difficult to decide and say that the drug cannot help this patient". On the other hand, determining the health status of patients is much easier and simpler for a doctor. Therefore, Ann's scheme is much more practical and effective.
ReplyDeleteDo anyone have any other idea?