Wolf,
Thanks for your opinions - I love good debate.
"Reality is that today these people have no viable solution and you heard me mention the morphine case.
Possible and equally unproven side effects (except for the smoking aspect) are insufficent reason in my view to withold the ability to see if marijauna can ease pain in extreme cases right now."
Wolf I really want to agree with you on this, and I do to some extent. However, if the agencies we rely on and "trust" to fully ensure the safety and efficacy of the drugs they tell us we should take, start to make exceptions, then a massive can of worms can be opened.
I hear your points above, but, consider that there are thousands of late stage AIDS victims, who "have no viable solution." Should regulatory agencies forgo the completion of clinical trials of WF10, and the subsequent statistical confirmation of the drug's safety and efficacy, because the patients need the drug "now," rather than later. WF10 may very likely save their lives, but is it ethical to do so before the clinical evidence is in? (I have an opinion on this, but the real answer is very debatable)
Wolf, based on your argument, I suppose you could re-write you point above to read as follows:
"Possible and equally unproven side effects are insufficent reason in my view to withold the ability to see if [WF10] can [save lives] in extreme [AIDS] cases right now."
Again Wolf, I agree with you to some extent. However, I see the can of worms being opened.
joe |
