The Instigator
rmflute
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Halogen
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

US clinical trials should be shortened if drugs have been proved viable in other countries.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,010 times Debate No: 45782
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

rmflute

Pro

Us Clinical trials should be shortened if the drugs have already been used successfully in other countries. If the drugs have already been successful, then the US shouldn't waste as much time on testing because people could be dying. If the drug is already working then we don't need to test it more than a few times.
Halogen

Con

Pro states that: should another country decide to trial a drug, and finds it to fulfill its purpose in that country, then the US should trial it for a shorter period of time. I disagree with this argument, for the following:

What restrictions and limitations are set on drug trials in the US, by drug companies, the FDA, CDC, etc are not the same as in other countries. Taking this into consideration, there could be problems if a drug was trialed in say, Austria, and for whatever reason the drug was trialed on too few people to be known with 100% certainty to be effective for all cases of illness. In this scenario, (trialing too small a sample size) the potential for testing that is not acceptable by US standards, but perfectly legal and acceptable for other countries, is simply too high to be ignored. Austrian law, as well as the law in other countries, may not be on par with US standards, and thus, doesn't make shortened trial periods any safer. Small sample sizes are only one of many potential problems among a vast margin for error in relying on foreign trial testing. Drug companies who must sell the drug to hospitals have to market it as safe, effective, and practical for any afflicted by the illness. Thus, they will often skimp on detail, focus in on specific facts. Echinacea, a natural herb marketed to cure and shorten the common cold, only shortens it on average by 0.5 days. By the companies standards, this is good. It SOUNDS good to consumers, and it is accessible to them for cheap and without a prescription. However, by FDA lab standards, 0.5 days in not actually considered a "significant change". Meaning, it isn't enough of a change when compared to the control group to say with any certainty that the drug in question directly caused the effect(s) observed.

Say a foreign country had done this testing. There is zero guarantee that the US would have access to the information that let them know the "positive" effects of echinacea were actually questionable. With a more serious drug, for treating medical ailments like epilepsy, depression, and dementia, it is too risky to rely on other countries for our medical information and subsequent choices for treatment of our patients. Especially if it's potentially false effects went unobserved because of unreleased information on the part of other countries. With proper marketing by drug companies, and with unknown information and effects, why risk allowing the drug to become a mass-treatment for millions of patients without truly knowing all that went into the more extensive (but not necessarily valuable) testing in foreign countries? Even with secondary rounds of testing in the US, there is, as with any skimping to testing, a risk that some vital fact goes unchecked, untested, or unnoticed because it is assumed to be already done and already done well in another country.
Debate Round No. 1
rmflute

Pro

rmflute forfeited this round.
Halogen

Con

Halogen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
rmflute

Pro

rmflute forfeited this round.
Halogen

Con

Halogen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
rmflute

Pro

rmflute forfeited this round.
Halogen

Con

Halogen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
rmflute

Pro

rmflute forfeited this round.
Halogen

Con

Halogen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Wouldn't call it lucky...
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Hmmm.... Pro hasn't been online in over 2 days and he joined 4 days ago. A lucky opponent may get a simple forfeit.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I've been looking at this one over the last few days trying to get my thoughts together to ask the right questions with regards to what you mean here. As far as I can tell, you're not referring to clinical trials conducted overseas, since they normally count just as much as trials done in the US. So you're probably talking about treatments that lack a clinical trial study of any sort, but are used by a wide population abroad, and therefore have essentially been extensively tested. If you could give me an example or two, I could nail this down, but the only examples running through my head would never face clinical trials anyway.

Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by reduced duration. What would specifically be reduced over the course of the clinical trial? How widely tested would the treatment have to be before it got this reduction? How should we assess viability?
No votes have been placed for this debate.