Dying within the Grilled concepts of Rules and Regulation, By Dr RazaHaider, An ethical discussion Based on Medical Ethics and Behavior. “What is this concept to let someone die within grilled concepts of rules and regulation? What is this irrationalism in the name of ethics and checks that compulsively allow death to take its revenge from life inspite that; something can be done voluntarily, to reach and response as palatable destinations of desire as quantum of life?”

Bending the Rules for a New Treatment

By Tara Parker-Pope October 29 ,NY Times(Health)

Should doctors bend the rules of a study so that a patient can receive an experimental drug? What if the rule bending contaminates the data, and a potentially lifesaving drug is never approved?

In today’s Doctor and Patient column, Dr. Pauline W. Chen writes about a challenge faced by doctors conducting clinical trials. Do they focus on the needs of the study or the needs of the patient? She writes:

As collaborators in research, they want to obtain information that is valid and able to be generalized for all future patients; but as doctors working within a patient-doctor relationship, they need to focus only on improving the condition of the patient before them. A patient in a chemotherapy clinical trial, for example, might complain of severe nausea after receiving a dose of an experimental drug. While the doctor as researcher might place a high priority on limiting the types of antinausea medications because of fears they could interact with and affect the experimental drug’s effects, that same doctor as patient advocate might choose to ignore the list of “approved” antinausea medications in order to use one that has previously worked.

To learn more, including the moving story of a woman who wanted to extend her life for just a few months so she could meet her grandchild, read the full column, “Bending the Rules of Clinical Trials.” Then please join the discussion below.

Here is my stance on the issue as say;

By Dr RazaHaider

“Bending the Rules of Clinical Trials”

Doctor! Can I have few more breath to see my legitimate arrivals as sons, daughters or grand children?

 

“No! I am sorry; since you don’t qualify; for, our strict criteria to award a trial to replenish few more breathe to you and similar siblings as future to come; this is as been designed by FDA and institutional review board and similar authorities as counsel of people in terms of “common rule”, which strictly awards mercenary death over dying desire.

 

We have strict compliance as initialization; before we can award life to humanity.

 

Your desire for a little more life has no value; over our prerogative orders as compulsion and obligation to follow designed rules and regulations.

 

Hence; I feel sorry; thus secluding inspite; my instinct to award you breathe in lieu of orders in the name of ethics, to halt my expertise and skill.”

 

What is this concept to let someone die within grilled concepts of rules and regulation?

 

What is this irrationalism in the name of ethics and checks that compulsively allow death to take its revenge from life inspite that; something can be done voluntarily, to reach and response as palatable destinations of desire as quantum of life?

 

I must have a valid reason to be acquainted with this term “Written Inform consent” and its physical value in which, a patient put himself over the counter of belief that ‘from now and onward his mind and soul shall believe ultimate resultant ; through the skill and expertise of a physician.

 

No logic and law can and shall curtail and debar request as plea as in this case few breathe; by formulating rules as special corset of ethics and criteria of selection.

 

This is a stubborn and unprecedented attitude of few mongers of ethics and rationalism who are willfully; I say it, criminally subjecting individual to death as calculated fate without striving to hold death by assertion as trial.

 

Defining subject objective rules of clinical trials in its role model is a separate verse but special circumstances like this one can not legitimately be own since; this is a circumstantial unconditional event and involves the plea of a dying soul, which by any means of honor, must be kept above.

 

In my opinion; its here where these universal policeman’s as “ethicist” and “counsel rule” should involve in humanly manner to certify the desire of patient hence selectively achieving wish at any cost  without obligatory rules or especial incentive based policy to the sufferer thereof to remedy the dying as aid.

 

In my opinion bending the rules of clinical trial is as much the same obligatory duty of all concerned, who takes the responsibility; to deliver safe and secure debut of drug prior to end user and no chance whatsoever should go in vain or unattended if an iota of achievement is a hope.