British soldiers used as guinea pigs in Afghanistan, page 1

Originally posted by stumason

Seen the possible side affects you can get off Neurofen? Or Anadin or any other over the counter pain killer? And thats using it as intended.

Hello SM

I think that's being a little disingenuous. Ibuprofen is a pretty safe, cheap NSAID with pretty minor effects, and taken orally, as opposed to a very powerful, expensive parenteral drug with more severe side effects - you're really comparing apples with oranges.

I'd say that using the drug to stop someone bleeding to death, which is what it is designed for, is pretty much in the scope of the drugs use.

It's actually designed to stop *haemophiliacs* from bleeding to death - i.e. VIIa helps out people who lack Factor VIII or IX in their coagulation cascade. That's what it's licensed for.

What the Guardian article is talking about, and what has got the veteran groups irritated is the use of VIIa on *non-haemophiliacs* - something it was *not* designed for.

And that's what the second link I posted refers to - effectively excess clotting causing stoke, DVT, MI and pulmonary embolism, with consequent death and disability.

Seeing as someone is highly likley to die from gun shot wounds and other combat related injuries if left untreated, I think they wont mind an ever so slight risk of an adverse reaction if it meant they didn't lose 6 pints of blood in some god forsaken dust bowl half way round the world.

I didn't say I was completely opposed to use in extreme circumstances, and I'm not going to comment on how arid Afghanistan is. I simply stated that it was ethically interesting that a drug was being used 'off the shelf' - it could well save lives, but it hasn't been proven to be effective or safe in non-haemophiliacs, as the second article states.

Point being, have you actually seen soldiers objecting to its use? I know I wouldn't, wether specifically licensed or not. The licensing process takes forever and if they have a drug which is proven to save lives, then why not use it?

Because it may or may not work. Because it may or may not cause more problems than it solves.

As for objecting to treatment - if people are in the condition they appear to be i.e. unconcious from massive trauma, it would be difficult to get consent from them.

Let's say an unconcious soldier is given VIIa, and as a result suffers from a stroke or MI. He didn't give consent - if it happened in the 'real world' he would be able to sue the doc, and probably rightly so. Why should his rights be any less as a non-civilian?

Let's not forget that often people don't get a full listing of the consequences of treatments and would not be in a proper position to object/accept anyway.

There is, after all a habit of using soldiers to test drugs, possibly unethically.

yale

And of course, anthrax vaccine in the 1st gulf war is still controversial (not sure one way or the other, but worth mentioning)

needs further study

Specific licensing is pending for the battlefield application anyhow. I would hardly call this particular application as using the soldiers as guinea pigs, as the drug has been tested for human use, just not specifically licensed as a battlefield anti-coagulant. It's a bit beurocratic to refuse a drug designed to stop bleeding, just because it hasn't had the ok to be used by non-hemophiliacs. If someones bleeding to death, I really don't think they care.

I still say the second link of this thread I posted shows consequencesin non-haemophiliacs, and the first article seems to show a lot of ex-military organisations opposed to it. If people can show it is being done with informed consent, then in life-threatening situations I think is could be argued it is acceptable, but I have yet to see the evidence that consent is being obtained.

TD