The discussion centered on the many medical and bioethical issues that surround the use of medicines, such as Hydroxychloroquine and Remdesivir, which have not yet been thoroughly researched and approved to treat patients afflicted with COVID-19. If a patient is in a life-threatening situation, is it acceptable to take the risks associated with an unproven drug treatment, as opposed to having no drug treatment at all? Concerning Hydroxychloroquine use, most researchers presently agree that the answer is “No” based on the most recent data that has been collected.

Remdesivir, though, is a broad-spectrum antiviral medicine with definite potential to help COVID-19 patients (when used together with interferons and corticosteroids), but much more research and data needs to be collected to justify its general use at this time.

The speakers also discussed the idea of “compassionate use” (or Expanded Access), where an individual terminally-ill patient can get special access to drugs that are not yet approved for general use by the FDA if he/she meets specific criteria. “Panic prescribing” and use of unproven medicines definitely carries with it great risks, but are there sufficient moral and medical justifications to take those risks during a pandemic?

 

Junior Emily Saxl  '21 wrote: “I was really glad to hear such interesting panelists and found it to be well-run and informative! I also thought the discussion of "compassionate use" was very interesting and not something I knew much about beforehand. It makes sense that the large number of people not eligible for clinical trials should have access to drugs that are in the process of being tested, especially if it is their last hope, but it seems very risky and is generally fascinating.”

 

Junior Dylan Andres '21 wrote: “I found this presentation to be incredibly interesting and relevant. When considering treatment options for COVID-19 (and all sicknesses) it’s simple for citizens to want to be given whatever remedies possible, but harder to engage in the difficult conversations concerning whether “something is always better than nothing,” which these bioethicists did. Prescribing hydroxychloroquine, the primary drug of discussion with respect to COVID-19 treatment, begs not only complex legal questions but ethical ones — is it compassionate to give a patient an untested drug that may aid their recovery but might just as well hinder it? It was fascinating to listen to these individuals debate such questions, the answers to which will have a direct impact on each and every one of our lives.”

Story submitted by High School Science Teacher Ron Schollenberger.