I'm not a medical student, but figured this would be the best place to get answer from those in-the-know! I'm actually a law student studying health care law and I'm currently writing a proposal for reform to the law. I am trying to propose something in accordance with encouraging more pharmaceutical companies to test cancer drugs on children. I have read proposals that companies should not be required to test drugs on children where it can be said that a particular cancer drug would not work in children. I'm struggling to get my head around this, mostly because I don't understand the science for why a cancer drug would not work in children, and also how on earth a pharmaceutical company can determine that their drug will not work, without even testing them?
In short, I'm just trying to work out whether this rule is justified, but need some science explained to me in order to figure it out.
Thank you in advance :-)