When a disease is almost always fatal and there is no known treatment or vaccine
for it, I'm not clear on why there should be any roadblocks to trying
treatments that have a chance of helping and that won't make things worse.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure what would make things worse for people
facing almost certain death. Ebola is fatal, painful and acts quickly. These
people don't have the option of waiting until clinical trials are done
before trying what they believe can help.
I totally agree with Eliyahu.It has never made any sense to me why
people with certain types of inoperable cancer that their doctors have
determined is going to be surely fatal, are not allowed to try new clinical
cancer treatment drugs that have yet to be fully tested and approved the FDA,
which process often takes several years or longer to do... time that those
people don't have. Those people and the FDA have nothing to
lose by trying those drugs. And if successful, the results would help to
minimize the time it takes for official approval and thus get the potentially
life saving drugs available to the public that much quicker... thus saving
untold lives in the interim. It would then be considered win-win.And
if some particular new drugs don't end up working, that person was facing
sure death anyway, so nothing was lost. In fact, it would then allow the FDA to
then put their time and concentration on other new drugs yet to be tried. That
in itself is still a public benefit.