[WiseWeasel]

Maybe the US is simply a poor market to launch new drugs into, if it costs that much to get it to market. It might be better to launch in other countries, like India, and then work towards a US launch after extensive use data is available.

[ams6110]

Most people are averse to the idea using human beings as guinea pigs, even if they are poor.

[WiseWeasel]

Poor people are also averse to dying of AIDS and cancer.

[politician]

That is exactly the reason why we shouldn't allow desperate people to be used as canon fodder for research in nations which are better known for corruption and reverse engineering.

Or are you saying that the poor should feel lucky for the opportunity to sign up for experimentation?

[pm90]

I'm not sure if that's what he meant. I think what he meant is that: use poor people cheaply for testing ==> make drugs faster ==> more poor people saved I'm really interested in the ethical questions involved in this matter, I'm sure of what side I am ethically on this, because I simply have to imagine what it would be if _I_ was the poor guinea pig (which could have happened btw, I was really really lucky to born to middle-class parents). But this is on very slippery slope; when you become desperate, it's where you start trying to justify a class of human beings as being `lesser'; and once you do that you've opened Pandora's box (Aryan race etc etc)

[WiseWeasel]

The goal should be for all people to have access to health care, and since it's less capital-intensive to launch a drug in India than it is in the US, then maybe that should be the norm. New drugs would be much more accessible with less investment to pay back.