Link Submit |
|
| |
|
health care support staffing
Perhaps I am growing more cynical, but every time I see a new piece of research only lasting one or two years, I wonder why it stopped early. I suppose it is always a balancing act. If you have a specific hypothesis, evidence for or against should be apparent fairly quickly. Thus, if a company believes it has the new blockbuster drug, administering it to some brave volunteers should produce good results or lose credibility in months. Anyway, the longer a trial goes on, the more difficult it gets to distinguish between potential causes and their effects. So when one or two participants develop a heart condition or get depressed, is this a side effect of the medication under test or a coincidence? In many cases, the answer only emerges over time. But no-one is systematically collecting longitudinal data. This is very convenient for the manufacturers which might have to pull a medication from the market if adverse evidence emerged. This leaves a moral question: who puts a value on one or two lives lost when millions may be benefiting from the medication?
http://healthstory.info/
|
| 1 |