One of my friends recently suffered from a very dangerous disease. He might live another 10 year and then die if not treated. Doctors are trying to give him one of the three drugs to treat his condition, which had been tested in clinical trials before:

i. Drug A had been found to deteriorate (doing no good) the condition of disease. But, it lengthens life by 2 years.

ii. Drug B had been found to deteriorate the condition lesser than that with drug A. But, it lengthens life by 5 years.

iii. Drug C haven't been tested so far, but it is a new drug they are trying to give him. But, there is 80% chance that it may take his life right away but 20% chance he may be cured.

Doctor showed us the option and we need to choose one of them. We are in dilemma. Which one do you guys think we should go with ? Hoping for your suggestions.

 

seems like nobody has any suggestion. Thanks for viewing though.

i am a bit confused.
he might live another 10 years and die if not treated is what you say. And the treatment (by giving him medicines) will lengthen his life by few years depending upon their types? so that means this treatment is just to elongate his life by few years after the 10 years that he may live and that he won't get healed for good?

and how come the medicines, even after deteriorating his conditions, still lengthen his life???? and how on earth can they give medicines which has not even been TESTED to a patient with such serious condition? damn, has my understanding dipping with age or everybody feels the same as i do about this query??

 It sounds kind of like an ethical question to me.

If the patient were to live 10 + additional years, additional years depending on the medicine s/he takes, I'd go for the third option if the treatment could be done just before the 10th year. If the treatment is successful, s/he gets a new life. If it does't work, s/he would not be able to live additional 2-5 years; however, s/he wouldn't have to undergo the pain that the treatments in the option 1 and 2 will bring about during those additional years.

okay looks like i understood it now.
by deterioration you mean 'doing no good' right? haha..

anyways, very sad news if it's true. so the folk is going to live 15 years (at max.) with medicine B right?
so medicine A is out of question right away as it can only give 2 more years.

now you gotta choose between medicine B and medicine C. with medicine A --15 years of life and with C,  20%  chances of  total cure  but 80%  chance of  not surviving at all.

it's a no-brainer to me. go for B. coz, it will at least make sure he lives for 15 odd years. by then, technology will improve for sure (however difficult his medical case may be) and they may come up with more robust and reliable method of cure that has higher success rate. don't even think of C which has 80% chance of failure as of now.

that's what i think..


PS btw, what is he suffering from? Mind sharing?

really slackdemic? is it an ethical question? doesn't sound like from the way he's written though ...
anyways, from what i understood, with drug C there is 80% chance that he might die RIGHT AWAY. doesn't say it's after 10 years. jeez, and where's the pain factor mentioned here? it's not another terry schiavo's case now is it?

Mastercard,

If I were in your shoes, I would go for Drug B, because as you said it's more effective than Drug A and far less dangerous than Drug C. When, even FDA approved  drugs has been recalled many times, I probably don't want to be a piece of experiment for any unapproved drug.

By the way, I am curious about the disease..., can you tell me what that is ?? And yea, we'll be praying for speedy recovery of your friend too.

Sampada

I don't know, Loote bro. While this question could be genuine and so it appears, I encountered similar ethical questions and they did't have concrete answers.

I am not for sure, but he says the patient is going to ( or might?) live for 10 years if s/he is uncured. For instance, those who are infected with AIDS live several years even without treatment. On that ground, I thought s/he would be better off undergoing the treatment little before 10 years and go for the tird option.

The poster of the question wrote the first two options would "deterioate" the condition regardless of adding 2-5 years of life. Maybe mastercard just meant "doing no good" as you said; my closed mind was not really aware and still not sure what actually that is supposed to mean.

Well anyways, I hope s/he founds the best way to get cured!

 

G'nite!

it depends on the condition of the patient..... if he is fully dependent than i might go 4 drug c.  if he still is nt fully dependent than drug b is a better option.....

why not try  drug B first and try c after 5 years..........

Sought for Dr. Bikash K.C. Hey Man where are you hibernating?

Your question is incomplete. What sort of complecations does durg A , drug B   have.

If the person loses conciousness and would have to be live without any sense and need help by people all the time then I don't think drug A should be the answer.

Same with durg B. Asks for possible effects with doctor like wether he/she can walk, have sense and so forth.

If both the above cases are true then you should go for drug C. I know it is hard to make such decision but at least it is honest effort to save his life.

Opt for C.

Remember Chairman Mao once said , " No Risk . No Reward. The greater the risk. The greater the reward".

Mastercard,

I would go with Option B or Option C. If left untreated, he will die. B will however buy him some time. I would try C later in his life after sometime B is given. How's that ?

 

Huh? goodjob, you sound like mastercard. i don't understand why people need two(multiple) nicks when they can't  convey a message clearly through either.

so there is a pain factor here. and it's same with all drugs if he's not going to survive with each of them.

i still stick with my previous suggestion, ie. go with option B. Buy as much time as possible and hope for the advent of better treatment technologies with time. Drug C has 80% chances of failure and it's not worth going for risk when the stake is that high (chances of survival being just 20% on paper) and when it's the freakin question of life and death.

Slackdemic bro,
I understand what you're saying. But even if it's an ethical question with pain involved during medication, i am not sure it's worth going with option C in this particular case as there is not much point in waiting and letting him live without medication. First thing, his conditions will deteriorate without medication, and secondly the 10 years that the docs claim he might live is just an approximation. So as you said, he might need medication before the end of first 10 years, say after 7 years to be in safe side. Therefore, you are looking at 15 years of life with B vs. 7 to 8 years with C if he does not survive (which could be 80% true).

goktey,
LOL! you sound like a gambler. dude, this ain't no poker, someone is dying here for heaven's sake.