I'd love to see them take an altruistic approach and shift the focus to countries like Africa where health projects would provide a lot more utility and have a lot less regulatory burden. Once a product is visibly working in one country it's more difficult to make cases against it elsewhere.
I've heard Bill Gates state this as one of his philanthropic goals; to fund things with a cost/benefit analysis that doesn't make sense in the developed world but does elsewhere.
I've worked with people involved in HIV vaccine trials overseas and, in fact, things really don't change as much as you might think.
The basic tenant "first do no harm" is ingrained at an many different ethical, institutional and legal levels that it isn't like you can, say, justify a more risky vaccine in an area with a higher risk for HIV or whatever.
In fact trials have been cut short and research into entire vectors (ie the cold virus used as a transport for the HIV related material) cut off when trials in Africa started to appear (statistically) to be slightly harmful in any way.
I feel this is a good thing. Scientists and medical people holding themselves to this high standard is the reason the anti-vaccine crowd really doesn't have a leg to stand on.
> to fund things with a cost/benefit analysis that doesn't make sense in the developed world but does elsewhere.
While it seems to go against "do no harm" ,in reality many low cost products can start at low quality, but with time and experience improve while still offering much lower costs. So the logic can make sense.
Not sure it works for vaccines thought.
Also i wonder: what were the benefits of the vaccine you described ? were they weighted against the slight harm ?
Unfortunately, the same doesn't apply to unethical treatment. More and more patients get certain treatments or recommendations by doctors or hospitals not because they need them but because they're profitable for the doctors or hospitals.
This is the insurance/financial product salesman's spirit at work, and it needs to be stopped. Right now.
I think part of the problem is the "insurance" mentality - if you don't pay for the treatment yourself, but the insurance just pays for everything, you aren't interested in an economical solution (and maybe the minimally-invasive treatment), but you take what's recommended. If you have to pay for treatment yourself, you begin asking questions. (Disclaimer: I live in Germany, a country with "free" health insurance, which I pay for with an effective 15% tax on my income.)
