"If I were a rich man..." indeed
Drug giants threaten NHS with legal action over cheaper drug that could save £84m a year
- Thread starter SirGalahad
- Start date
"If I were a rich man..." indeed
Sponsored Links
I just liked the subtle way you seamlessly brought immigration into the thread and thought, what the heck.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,544
- Reaction score
- 2,173
- Country
This is a bit more complex than the article suggests. Somebody is liable if the drug which is not licensed for the use has side affects. The drug company would have a strong defence when it had not sought to license the usage, so who pays for the injuries caused?
if you were, for example, going blind, and a qualified specialist who had studied the research concluded that you might be helped by drug "x", and the result was that your hair fell out, surely you would have to prove lack of care, or reckless risk-taking, in order to claim compensation.
Could you?
In the same way that you might go for an op to remove a brain tumour, and you might be warned that there is a 33% chance of recovery; a 33% chance of no improvement, and a 34% chance of death. Can you sue if you die?*
*obviously not, because you're dead.
Could you?
In the same way that you might go for an op to remove a brain tumour, and you might be warned that there is a 33% chance of recovery; a 33% chance of no improvement, and a 34% chance of death. Can you sue if you die?*
*obviously not, because you're dead.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
How do you expect our chief executives and doctors to manage if they actually have to pay for their holidays abroad, once the pharmaceutical companies stop bribing them, with them?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,544
- Reaction score
- 2,173
- Country
As it stands the qualified specialist would have defied guidelines in prescribing the un licensed drug.
That would expose him to a potential claim
That would expose him to a potential claim
It will give me moderator rights to jump into any thread topic to post a 'migrant' post. JohnD has already secured the rights to Brexit posts
.- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,439
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
No.
http://www.icid.salisbury.nhs.uk/Me...lguidance/Pages/UseofUnlicensedMedicines.aspx
There are guidelines for this and it will all be discussed beforehand in a professional and proper manner.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,544
- Reaction score
- 2,173
- Country
There is a potential claim however, plus the manufacturers could bring a damages claim too.
Isn’t part of the reason these licenses exist because of the thalidomide issue?
Isn’t part of the reason these licenses exist because of the thalidomide issue?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,439
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Pharmaceuticals have a licence for a specific use. If some enterprising medic finds a dual use for it then the pharmaceutical manufacturer will either try limit supply.
"Ophthalmologists around the world, on their own initiative, are injecting tiny quantities of a colon cancer drug called Avastin into the eyes of patients with wet macular degeneration, a common condition of older age that can lead to severely impaired eyesight and blindness. They report remarkable success at very low cost because one phial can be split and used for dozens of patients.
But Genentech, the company that invented Avastin, does not want it used in this way. Instead it is applying to license a fragment of Avastin, called Lucentis, which is packaged in the tiny quantities suitable for eyes at a higher cost. Speculation in the US suggests it could cost £1,000 per dose instead of less than £10. The company says Lucentis is specifically designed for eyes, with modifications over Avastin, and has been through 10 years of testing to prove it is safe.
Unless Avastin is approved in the UK by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) it will not be universally available within the NHS. But because Genentech declines to apply for a licence for this use of Avastin, Nice cannot consider it.
"Ophthalmologists around the world, on their own initiative, are injecting tiny quantities of a colon cancer drug called Avastin into the eyes of patients with wet macular degeneration, a common condition of older age that can lead to severely impaired eyesight and blindness. They report remarkable success at very low cost because one phial can be split and used for dozens of patients.
But Genentech, the company that invented Avastin, does not want it used in this way. Instead it is applying to license a fragment of Avastin, called Lucentis, which is packaged in the tiny quantities suitable for eyes at a higher cost. Speculation in the US suggests it could cost £1,000 per dose instead of less than £10. The company says Lucentis is specifically designed for eyes, with modifications over Avastin, and has been through 10 years of testing to prove it is safe.
Unless Avastin is approved in the UK by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) it will not be universally available within the NHS. But because Genentech declines to apply for a licence for this use of Avastin, Nice cannot consider it.
Here's another thought. If the nhs had not recently been forced by the court to waste money prescribing a drug for gay blokes to be able to carry on shafting each other bareback just for fun, then perhaps instead there would be more money to spend on helping more deserving people.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,439
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Whataboutism. Woody defending big Pharma in this case because he is so well trained.
Sponsored Links
