Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay participants excluded from some clinical trials

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I have registered my consent as an organ donor for any of my body parts to be used for transplants. Should I now seek to limit that consent so that only other LGBT people benefit? How utterly ridiculous this kind of medieval thinking is.

  2. I was expecting the usual screaming from emotional Wimmin that feel ostracised, but never examine the logic. Much like the blood donation debacle. There may be very good reasons for doing this, and pharmaceutical trials can be critical based on their sample subjects. I suspect that they are picking sexually active straight couples because they are the closest to a “norm”, and so any drug that affects sexual dysfunction can be more readily identified. Equally they have chosen to not use single people for the same reason that there can be so much variance between samples.

    As usual, the people on here get the complete wrong end of the stick and start attacking people for apparent political attitudes when it has absolutely damn all to do with the reasons behind it. If people stopped knee-jerking and applied a little common sense and pragmatism to what is going on, they might actually understand why they have chosen to omit LGBT people.

    And as for Jane claiming this will benefit only straight people is ridiculous. Drugs based on this research will be available to benefit everybody.

  3. Rob_N, I did not make any such claim.
    It’s your remark that is ridiculous.

  4. Rob N, posting rubbish about something he knows b***er all about as usual.

    In reality in clinical trials, there can be various reasons for specific exclusion criteria, dependent upon the compound and nature of action, and these are set out within the study protocol. However, the key point here is that subjects appear to be actively excluded simply because they are gay, and not for reasons relating to the proper conduct of the clinical trial.

    That IS a matter of some concern, as it smells of unethical practices.

    As for your silly assertions above, RobN, they are just fluff. In point of fact in many clinical studies it is imperative that as wide a cross section of people as possible be included.

    What RobN knows about clinical trials could be written on the back of a postage stamp. What RobN THINKS he ‘knows’ about clinical trials would fill libraries.

    RobN, the ‘gay’ man who always supports the homophobes.

    Take it from me, someone who works in the clinical trials industry, RobN, you are talking sh**e. As usual.

  5. J Mathews: I know a fair bit about it as my best pal is a senior manager responsible for clinical trials for Smith Kline Glaxo, and I have spent a lot of time discussing both the technical as well as moral issues regarding pharmaceutical trials. I have never purported to be an expert in the field, but I think I have a far greater insight on the subject than the average bloke on the street.

    If all you can do is slag off my argument on the basis you don’t like me, then it obviously demonstrates how weak your counter argument is. You just have the usual reactionary persecution complex that immediately assumes that gays are being targeted, when it is usually a far more benign reason.

    At the end of the day, they can take on who the hell they like, they are a private company that pay people to do these trials, so if they don’t want inbred little turds on their books, I guess they won’t bother to call you.

  6. HOWEVER, the article clearly states that the reasons for exclusion were NOT clear. Also, although Glaxo are a private company, they are not at liberty to “do as they like” since they have an impact on our health. And a deadly one at that: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/glaxo-funded-backers-of-danger-drug-1923852.html

  7. Matt: “Although Glaxo are a private company, they are not at liberty to “do as they like” since they have an impact on our health.”

    Again, crap. Glaxo can do what the hell they like when it comes to drug trials, but that doesn’t mean they can release untested medicines, hence the amount of trials, testing, screening etc. After such instances as Thalidomide, these situations demand massive testing. In the case of Avandia, I used to be on that stuff, and I personally found it beneficial. All drugs have side effects to some degree or other, but one has to way up the benefits versus the problems.

  8. Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW 16 Apr 2010, 8:19pm

    Clinical Trials also represent the last and only avenue for treatment and extending life, for many patients with end stage disease. By excluding Lesbian and Gay patients, clinical trials are preventing access to life saving treatment. Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW Executive Director Out With Cancer – The National LGBT Cancer Project

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all