Over the weekend, the New York Times provided an extensive report on the ethical dilemmas inherent in treating those involved in the clinical testing of new treatments and drugs.
The article described the circumstances of two victims of melanoma, a deadly skin cancer that takes on average eight months to prove fatal. Both entered a clinical trial for a new drug that was exclusively designed for the type of tumor that was present in their bodies.
The drug, called PLX4032, has been shown to delay the cancer's effects for eight months in 81 percent of patients, while traditional chemotherapy holds the disease off for two months in only 15 percent of patients. One of the two applicants, who happened to be cousins, received the drug as part of the trial, while the other was randomly assigned to a control group to receive chemotherapy.
As part of the control group, the patient cannot abandon the chemotherapy under any circumstance, even if it proves early on to be unsuccessful.
While the circumstances are extremely unfortunate, drugs need to be fully tested according to strict scientific processes.
Like all scientific experiments, clinical trials require a control group in order to have something to compare the results of the drug with. It is regrettable that we need victims of cancer to be a part of this group, even if it ends up not being the best treatment for them.
The most important thing to know about this dilemma is that the clinical trial is voluntary. Patients need to be fully informed about the risks and the rewards of being part of such a trial.
Hopefully the potential suffering of few patients now will lead to saving lives down the line. When it comes to a horrendous disease like cancer, finding a cure must be the most important thing above all others.
If drugs like PLX4032 do end up saving people in the future, we must remember the trial's participants as instrumental in helping countless others.
