Readings 11/26

Three Interesting Things:
1.) I find it interesting that when researchers are looking for volunteers, they disclose all sorts of information to them in order to make sure that they have all the information they need to make their decision. This interests me because if physicians and pharmacists did this during their regular practice than they would deal with less medical errors and more efficient adherence of patients. Why is there a difference in information given if research and practice are similarly on the same level.
2.) I find that the IRB kind of relates or has similarities of a jury. They are people who cannot have connection to subjects or the conditions at hand because it will skew their review. They are all culturally diverse and full of people with totally different backgrounds. It gives a more honest review in the end as well as make the trial more efficient.
3.) I think that it is interesting that the Code of Federal Regulations uses the word reasonable so often; reasonable persons, reasonable risks, reasonable decision, reasonable benefits. This term is as if you are using the term normal. Everyone's version of normal is different just like everyone's view of reasonable is different. I feel like this is a way for clinical trials to beat around the bush or cut corners in terms of getting volunteers to perform tasks that they may not fully be aware of. It is easy to coerce a less knowledgeable person to perform a task they struggle to fully understand.

Three Questions:
1.) How can you protect someone's beneficence by "exposing them to the risk of harm" if this could potentially lead to harm?
2.) What is the difference between the IRB and a governance board?
3.) Who decides if risks are reasonable to the benefits? Is there a curriculum to follow? How will you know that it will pay off?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Readings for 11/21

Three Interesting Things: 1.) I think it is interesting that some patients avoid treating their pain with opioids because of the negative connotation given by the media surrounding these drugs. Although, yes, they can be addictive there are ways to manage the intake so that you can both treat your pain and not become addicted. 2.) I think that the fact that patients could have to sign a narcotic contract to ensure that they will not go to fill the prescription at another pharmacy. I think that this is an excessive way to do this but I also feel that this is the only way to keep patients honest because of people within these situations these people cannot control their need. 3.) I think that it is interesting that this article brings up the topic of having pharmacists be more intuned with their work and be more educating for their patients. We have talked about often how pharmacists should have more of a comforting position with their patients and be able to have empathy for them. ...
Read more

Reading for 9/24

Three Interesting Things: 1.) I had no idea that the term "Clinical Research" only applied to studies and trials done on humans rather then animals or other test subjects. When grouping them all together you tend to have a broader or less abstract view of what the study actually entails but breaking down the term makes you start to separate the trial in your mind ahead of time. 2.) I think it is interesting that the FDA approves and regulates drug advertising but yet some companies still get away with falsifying their information about a drug when advertising it. There have been a multitude of law suits where patients experience a side affect or undesired outcome due to advertisements lacking certain information. With the most regulatory group approving all of this it is funky that some still slip through the cracks. 3.) I think that when it comes to naming drugs there is a laboratory name and then a manufacturing name. Its basically further splitting up the industry in...
Read more

Reflection 10/27

This week we learned about Federal Regulation with Dr. Baker. When it comes to regulation there is much to take in because there are many boxes to check state and federal wise. The US is one of the most efficient countries when it comes to regulating the drugs brought to market. The reason for doing so is because with healthcare resources being so scarce, there is no room for medical errors. This means that the regulatory committees want to get drugs to patients that are safe and effective that will not cause controversy in the future. The FDA's job is to decide what is actually considered a drug, whether this drug is going to need a prescription or can be over the counter, double check marketing efforts of the drug, and then finally make sure that all drugs that need proper FDA documentation have it. To those trying to experiment with drugs, they may see this process to be over bearing but it is specifically put in place to make sure that patients are receiving proper care. The ov...
Read more