Quotes: "To use this drug without having any information on its human benefits or dangers runs the risk of mistakenly thinking it is either effective or not based upon anecdotal evidence, a difficulty that could prove disastrous for later in this outbreak or future ones," says Dr. Philip M. Rosoff, a professor of pediatrics and medicine and director of the Clinical Ethics Program at Duke University Hospital."Desperately sick people and their families make decisions under very trying circumstances. Often, they are willing to try anything that they believe -- or can be led to believe -- may offer some hope of improvement or a cure. As such, they can be ripe targets for those who would take advantage of their desperation and plight. Thus, extra caution and thought must be given to using experimental and possibly dangerous treatments in this population.""The notion of informed consent in these situations is almost meaningless as the desire for something -- anything -- can lead patients and their families to ignore even the direst warnings. In the current epidemic of Ebola, there is the added ingredient of the long and sordid history of pharmaceutical companies from Western industrialized nations performing clinical trials in poor, undereducated populations for the benefit of the potential wealthy patients back in their home countries.""Furthermore, the few patients who have been treated with this first-in-people drug for Ebola have all been white residents of Europe or the United States, a fact that could raise issues of preferential treatment."BioDr. Philip Rosoff specializes in clinical ethics with a concentration on the equitable allocation of scarce resources. He has worked on planning for pandemic influenza and allocation of drugs during shortages. He is the author of "Rationing is not a Four-Letter Word" (2014, MIT Press)http://trentcenter.duke.edu/node/65For additional comment, contact Rosoff at:philip.rosoff@duke.edu
