Fox News: Charity Offers to Pay for 7 Year Old’s Lifesaving Treatment; Drug Maker Still Refuses

From Fox News. See my commentary below.

A pediatric cancer charity is offering to pay for 7-year-old cancer survivor Josh Hardy to receive lifesaving medication that could cure him of a potentially deadly virus.

But Chimerix, the pharmaceutical company that produces the medication, is still refusing to give Josh the treatment he so desperately needs.  In fact, a representative for the charity said he tried speaking with Chimerix CEO Kenneth Moch about Josh’s case – but Moch hung up on him.

Over the course of his childhood, Josh has survived four bouts of kidney cancer and even suffered from heart failure.  Then, in November 2013, he developed a bone marrow disorder as a result of his cancer treatments and underwent chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn. Though his treatments were a success, Josh subsequently developed adenovirus – an acute infection that can be deadly in people with compromised immune systems.

Doctors at St. Jude recommended that Josh be treated with Brincidofovir – an antiviral drug that has been proven to clear up adenovirus in children within two weeks.  However, the drug has not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), preventing Josh’s family from gaining access to the medication.

Josh’s mother, Aimee Hardy, has appealed to Moch to grant Josh emergency access to the medication, but the company is refusing to make an exception.  According to Fox News’ Peter Johnson Jr., Chimerix has given hundreds of patients emergency access to Brincidofovir in the past, but Moch said the company has since stopped this practice because “they cannot afford it.”

Now, the Max Cure Foundation, a charity dedicated to researching rare pediatric cancers, has offered to pay for the cost of the drug – but Chimerix still won’t budge.

“I spoke to Mr. Moch yesterday by phone.  I told him that we had the $50,000 that I thought he was claiming he needed to supply the drug,” Richard Plotkin, vice chair of the Max Cure Foundation, told Johnson Jr. on Fox and Friends.  “He then told me it isn’t about money.  He told me it’s all about ethics.  I said, ‘Fine, tell me why you will not give [it to] this little boy.’ If he does not get the drug, he will die this week, I’m told.  He said he cannot make an exception.”

Read it all.

For those of you who have heard me preach, one of the things I say regularly is that human sin allows evil an inroad into God’s good world to corrupt and destroy it. If ever there is an awful example of how this dynamic works, you can find it right here in this sad story. Here we have the CEO of a drug company, Chimerix, initially claiming that the company cannot afford to save a life. Really?? REALLY??? In making this claim, the CEO, Kenneth Moch, is in effect telling the world that he and his company worship the dollar as their ultimate god. Moch will one day discover that the dollar does not have the power to either call things into existence that were not or raise him from the dead (Romans 4.17). Only God can do those things and that God calls all humans to bear his image faithfully. But in worshiping an unreal god (money) as Moch does, a young boy will likely die when the company has it in its power to help him live. This is how evil is allowed to work in God’s good world and it is both heartbreaking and maddening.

Not only is this an evil in itself, but in so refusing to help the child despite the fact that there are those who are willing to pay for the drug, Moch and his company are shirking their God-given duty to be good stewards of God’s world. Drug and medical research are good things and are quite consistent with our God-given charge to humans as the earth’s (and each other’s) caretakers. But that is not happening here.

Instead, in this instance a drug company and its CEO are acting wickedly. Their position is made even worse because after being initially honest about why Chimerix was refusing to sell this drug to save this boy (the company couldn’t afford it), now Moch falls back on the using the “ethical” canard of being “consistent.” What is ethical about consistency when it leads to a preventable death is never explained to us.

I hope Mr. Moch understands that one day he will have to stand before the judgment throne of the Lord. I also hope he realizes that excuse-making for acting evilly will not be tolerated or accepted. If Moch does not believe in God, so be it. But he would do well to rethink his foolishness and take to heart God’s command to all humans to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God (Micah 6.8). Moch and his company are doing none of this. Instead he is choosing to do selfishly, act mercilessly, and walk haughtily in his own self-centeredness/self-righteousness. Whether he believes it or not, the God of justice holds him accountable for this sin and for allowing evil to exert an even tighter grip on God’s world.

Hopefully this knowledge will lead Mr. Moch to reconsider his decision and move to help the doctors save this little boy’s life. If Moch does repent of this evil, he will find himself amazed and blessed when he acts in accordance with God’s good will and purposes for all human beings.

And before we get all haughty and self-righteous in condemning Moch’s behavior, let us remember that none of us is without sin and all of us will likewise have to stand before the Lord’s judgment throne and account for our own behavior that allowed evil to make further inroads into God’s good creation. This should help us keep proper perspective and  prevent our judgment on this evil decision from turning into judgmentalism. Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy.

Andrew Symes: Gay Marriage and the Church’s Response

A rock-solid analysis. See what you think.

Symes-AndrewAs the Archbishop of Canterbury has reminded us more than once, we are experiencing a cultural revolution in the area of public attitudes to sexual morality. The pace of change has been rapid. I am not yet 50 years old. When I was born, homosexual sex was illegal; now, in two weeks time, people of the same sex will marry, accompanied by celebrations all over the country here in the UK. The change has not evolved gradually, but has happened as part of a deliberate campaign. The change has been carefully controlled, by using media, the law and even science to promote the new ideas.

The changes have been rapidly accepted: importantly by people with power and influence, and then filtering down to the general population. The message has been imposed through a combination of relentless teaching and threats of punishment for resisting.  And there is a real belief that the changes are wholly positive and part of the progress of civilisation.

In the face of this remarkably successful campaign, how has the church responded? By and large, we have seen targeting, analysis, paralysis, and division. After looking at each of these in turn, we’ll see if we can discern any signs of hope.

It is a paradox that though one of the tenets of the media narrative about the church is its irrelevance, it is deemed relevant enough to be relentlessly targeted in the campaign for full ‘gay rights’. Why should it matter to the majority of gay people and those who support the successful campaign for full ‘equality’ what the church believes or does? And yet it clearly does matter, as these articles in today’s Daily Telegraph  and Guardian  show, together with the stream of comments.

Why have the newspapers found space for these opinions?  Because a church which conforms to secular humanism’s diktats remains usefully irrelevant and is a poodle rather than a lion. Would they print an article with the opposing view? A church which says “there is a higher authority than Caesar” is a counterrevolutionary threat, so if this view is given space, it is in order to ridicule and criticize it.

Read it all.