Bayer released HIV infected Factor VIII

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
That's absolutely disgusting and I think those execs should be punished other than a fine! That's sad and absolutely sick!
 
Trancelucent1 said:
That's absolutely disgusting and I think those execs should be punished other than a fine! That's sad and absolutely sick!

I'll agree. This is absolutely repulsive.
 
wow, this should be bigger news
 
TheAverageGuy said:
I'll agree. This is absolutely repulsive.

I think they should be fined and committed based on the fact that they probably got 10s of millions of bonuses based on the profits that they get from selling old stockpile of meds discriminately.
 
Wow. Now that's absolutely rediculous.
 
wow, I am sick to my stomach... that is just crazy.
 
HIV was discovered in 1983 and there wasn't much blood supply testing until 1985. That people got HIV from blood products in 1984 is not in the least surprising.

I wonder if the heated product was available overseas or not.
 
yatzek said:
wow, this should be bigger news

The story on cbsnews.com is dated May 22, 2003. Maybe it was bigger news 3 years ago.
 
bananaface said:
HIV was discovered in 1983 and there wasn't much blood supply testing until 1985. That people got HIV from blood products in 1984 is not in the least surprising.

I wonder if the heated product was available overseas or not.


Yes, the awareness of the magnitude of HIV infection was not present in the mid-80's. It was just beginning to come to public attention.

The first ELISA test to screen blood for HIV was not commercially available until March of 1985. Not all hospitals began screening right away - these things take time to implement.

My younger sister had a blood transfusion in 1985, prior to the time when our community hospital screened the blood for HIV.
 
The way I look at the ethical issue is this:

If the heat treated version was not available overseas these patients were choosing between a fatal bleeding episode and potentially contaminated blood product. That risk is acceptable if no alternatives are available to the patient.

If the heat treated and non-heat treated versions were both available overseas, and patients or their medical providers chose the latter, they chose to assume the increased risk.

I guess what is in question is does the FDA's decision to pull a drug from the US market for safety purposes mean that it should not be sold overseas.
 
bananaface said:
The way I look at the ethical issue is this:

If the heat treated version was not available overseas these patients were choosing between a fatal bleeding episode and potentially contaminated blood product. That risk is acceptable if no alternatives are available to the patient.

If the heat treated and non-heat treated versions were both available overseas, and patients or their medical providers chose the latter, they chose to assume the increased risk.

I guess what is in question is does the FDA's decision to pull a drug from the US market for safety purposes mean that it should not be sold overseas.


I would say no.
It is up to individual countries to set and enforce their own safety standards.
There are plenty of things available overseas that you can't get in the US.

My family is hosting a young man from Rwanda who is studying here. He arrived with all kinds of weird things (different creams and other preparations that he uses). He can't get most of them here, but they are available (some OTC) in Rwanda.
 
That's absolutely disgusting and I think those execs should be punished other than a fine! That's sad and absolutely sick!

The severe repercussions from selling the tainted units definetly outweighs the financial profit of such sale, so it is highly unlikely Bayer knew the units were HIV positive.
 
Top