Quantcast

Comments about ‘UN: OK to use untested Ebola drugs in outbreak’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 12 2014 7:56 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

When a disease is almost always fatal and there is no known treatment or vaccine for it, I'm not clear on why there should be any roadblocks to trying treatments that have a chance of helping and that won't make things worse. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what would make things worse for people facing almost certain death. Ebola is fatal, painful and acts quickly. These people don't have the option of waiting until clinical trials are done before trying what they believe can help.

Brio
Alpine, UT

I totally agree with Eliyahu.

It has never made any sense to me why people with certain types of inoperable cancer that their doctors have determined is going to be surely fatal, are not allowed to try new clinical cancer treatment drugs that have yet to be fully tested and approved the FDA, which process often takes several years or longer to do... time that those people don't have.

Those people and the FDA have nothing to lose by trying those drugs. And if successful, the results would help to minimize the time it takes for official approval and thus get the potentially life saving drugs available to the public that much quicker... thus saving untold lives in the interim. It would then be considered win-win.

And if some particular new drugs don't end up working, that person was facing sure death anyway, so nothing was lost. In fact, it would then allow the FDA to then put their time and concentration on other new drugs yet to be tried. That in itself is still a public benefit.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments