{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

2_Medicalization of Race - Duster

2_Medicalization of Race - Duster - Essay Focus In a...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Essay Focus www.thelancet.com Vol 369 February 24, 2007 703 In a remarkable turn of fate, however, one of the investigators looked at the data again, and found that a small sub-sample of African Americans in the original clinical trial seemed to have fared better than did white people. 2 Because the study was not designed to compare effi cacy of BiDil in people of different races, a new clinical trial would have had to be approved to investigate such a hypothesis. However, rather than setting up a study design to test this hypothesis, in March, 2001, the FDA approved a full-scale clinical trial, undertaken only in black men and women with heart disease. 4 In June, 2005, after a hearing in which an FDA committee reviewed reports that BiDil was significantly more effective than a placebo, the drug’s patent was approved for another 15 years as a race-specific drug. 5 Indeed, the race-specific claim was what made the drug patentable. 6 The use of black participants only in this BiDil trial is indicative of three problematic assumptions about race and medicine. The first is that African Americans’ risk of developing and dying from heart failure is substan- tially greater than that of white people. An investigation by the Hamline University, St Paul, MN, USA, legal scholar Jonathan Kahn seriously challenges this assertion. 7 Kahn’s work shows that claims made by NitroMed, the company that developed BiDil, about the extent of differences in effi cacy between black and white people are untrue. Kahn traced the citation sources used
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online