There have been other cases of unapproved technology being used in the field, but I think there is a difference between hardware and drugs.
British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are being treated with an experimental drug that has not been fully tested. The Ministry of Defence is giving soldiers an experimental blood clotting drug called NovoSeven, the Guardian reports.
It says that because randomised controlled trials have not yet been carried out it is impossible to judge the drug’s effectiveness. But the MoD said the drug has only been authorised after “an extensive review of the current evidence”.
Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis, chairman of the science and technology select committee, said the MoD’s decision was “a dereliction of its duty of care that indicates a moral bankruptcy within the military.” And an expert in trauma care has warned “there is potential for harm”.
I wonder what the soldiers think about it?
If it works, then I suspect they are all for it.
Soldiers can often be lied into being guinea pigs. There certainly were enough in A-Bomb tests. Still, I wonder if they’ve been told this stuff is “experimental”. Last time, we sent a flock of the “willing” off to the Middle East, we shot them up with all sorts of unproven goodies.
Well, the drug in question is a clotting agent, designed to keep someone from bleeding to death. It is not some experimental drug given in mass to all soldiers. There is a big difference there… bleed to death or take this and it might help. Hmmm… tough choice.
This is one of those stories that really shows how context is everything, and how headlines can be uttelry decieving and misleading.
Awake — you really have no idea of what side effects might stem from a clotting agent that’s unproven? It has nothing to do with context and everything to do with lousy medicine.
Or are you ready to volunteer for an unproven jab or two?
If I were bleeding to death, I don’t think I’d be in much of a position to argue against using a drug that might actually help me, particularly after others had failed. On the other hand, if I were bleeding to death, perhaps something else would be wrong with me such that my quality of life would suffer beyond reason. Hm… no opinion.
I’m with #5. It’s just like in any hospital, if there’s some drug that hasn’t been fully tested, but it might be the only thing that can save your life, you can opt to get it. The only people causing a stink about this are the ones who sit comfortably at home. I see no complaints coming from the soldiers!
Context is everything. If I’m bleeding to death and the medic has a shot that might let me skin through with my life, I’m gonna go for it. Near-certain death or unknown possible risk later on… gimme the risk over the certainty, anytime.
But as for seeing no complaints from the soldiers – are you saying, Captain Wesker, that the grunts are encouraged to comment publicly on military policy? If so, things sure have changed since I served back when.
Hey Smartalex etc What’s that about?? (Don’t know, sometimes it happens – ed.)
I think I saw a piece on this stuff. They ipregnate the dressings with the clotting agent and pack the wound. Bleeding stops almost instantly. One good thing is that the agent is localised and doesn’t cause clotting all over the body like an intrvenous drug. Reading the article, the MOD statement says that the agent is only used when conventional means are exhausted. This drug presents a unique situation. Only military surgeons in combat are likely to see large volumes of massive wounds that won’t respond to normal treatments. So the question is do we save a soldiers life at the risk of future complications, or let him bleed to death.
Unfortunately we have all learned that a soldiers life counts for little as far as the beaureaucrats are concered, hence the fuss. We always have to ask the question, “Are they looking out for the soldiers, or the multinational drug corporation who paid for their holiday home?”
The bandages you refer to are different from this drug:
http://www.us.novoseven.com/patient/aboutN7_Overview.aspx
How does this work compared to QuikClot (which is what has been fielded to US troops)?