The comapny had created a small supply of the drug and were going to start clinical trials. But his children weren't selected. We said there was an understanding that they would be some of the firts to get treated. There were two problems. First, hopistals (who would run the trial) saw this as an ethical issue--the first people selected were children of the exec. Second, the children were 4 and 6, and most people felt the testing would go faster on younger children. Fatser testing implied earlier profits, and the corporation has a responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profits.
Some things don't make sense here. The people ( or children )who are selected for the treatment have to have medical condition suitable for the study. This is a not FDA-approved drug. Each company develops a protocol which the hospital has to follow. The age of the patients would be part of the protocol. There is not faster testing in this case either. The duration of the treatment depends on the medical condition of the patient and not what shareholders wish to do. Usually the company predefines those conditions, and duration of the treatment, in the same protocol. The hospital has no moral problems with the origin of the candidates for the study. Thus if those children would be qualified for the study, it would not matter if they are relatives of one of the executives.
Bottom line, I am sure that you are correct in your assesment of the story. I am not sure if the journalist who wrote the story made the things look more dramatic.
[ August 28, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Bronshteyn ]