Posted on 08/07/2007 6:18:17 PM PDT by zendari
WASHINGTON - Terminally ill patients do not have a constitutional right to be treated with experimental drugs, even if they likely will be dead before the medicine is approved, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned last year's decision by a smaller panel of the same court, which held that terminally ill patients may not be denied access to potentially lifesaving drugs.
The full court disagreed, saying in an 8-2 ruling that it would not create a constitutional right for patients to assume "any level of risk" without regard to medical testing.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Wellllll... I think this was about FDA saying they can’t use the experimental drugs before FDA says they can.
I’m sure the researchers would have been all about handing it out with a *HUGE* disclaimer.
And then would come the class action lawsuit when things go horribly wrong. After all, these patients were dying -- they couldn't make reasonable decisions about weighing the risks involved!
i am guessing you are right that this is an insurance issue and forcing insurance companies to pay for experimental drugs.
I’m not sure. I think it’s more about patients demanding that they be given experimental drugs regardless of whether the FDA or the company is ready or not.
"The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned last year's decision by a smaller panel of the same court, which held that terminally ill patients may not be denied access to potentially lifesaving drugs."
If the court is saying that terminal patients are not entitled to these drugs - as in requiring the doctors to administer them - then I would agree. However, the article then states:
"The full court disagreed, saying in an 8-2 ruling that it would not create a constitutional right for patients to assume "any level of risk" without regard to medical testing."
The two paragraphs don't seem to be talking about the same thing. If the court is saying that a person may not decide how much personal risk he wants to assume, then it's a bad ruling.
Now the courts are getting into our medical decisions. If I want to be a guinea pig, it’s my business....or use to. How soon before the T4 tribunal starts deciding who lives and who dies. Scarey Stuff.
just scanning the title,i thought they meant that the terminally ill are now to be denied basic bloodwork—since they’re going to die anyway.
that’s probably coming next with managed care.
I agree with the judges that this is way beyond their power to decide as such. Congress has to at least create a framework for the judges to work with, or no matter what they do, they will be creating not rights, but law, out of whole cloth.
Reaching about any decision would also open the gates to a dozen more strong arguments, such as “can drug companies or the FDA do double blind testing, even though it means that half the people who get the drug are getting ineffective placebos?”
It also isn’t just an argument of whether a drug works or not, it’s also quality: does the drug work in 50% of people with the problem, 70% or only 20%? If there are other drugs that work on 40% of people, that are not experimental, yet if they get the experimental drug instead, then they won’t be using a drug that might work better.
This is outrageous interference of the government in individual autonomy and the right of contract, bottom line.
You’re forgetting the good old Commerce Clause.
Never EVER let politics enter the medical realm. It’s not just a slippery slope, it’s a 90 degree drop off. And just think the insurance lawyers are foaming at the mouth AT HOW MANY SLAIMS THEY CAN REFUSE.
If you merely forgot the < /s> tag, fine. If you were serious, you need to be smacked.
I’m serious in the sense that I think the Congress believes that the FDA’s actions in this case are permissible because it is regulating a form of interstate commerce. I think the Congress should amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act to allow terminally ill patients get drugs that have passed Phase I of the approval process, but haven’t completed that process. What do the terminally ill have to lose?
I agree, congress, for the most part, THINKS they have the authority to regulate; however, this is the kind of “thinking” that needs serious discouragement... along with abolition of the FDA, among other illegal agencies.
Were I terminal with something, I suspect I’d be willing to try anything with promise, too...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.