Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(DC Circuit) Court rules out terminally ill for tests
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070807/ap_on_he_me/experimental_drugs;_ylt=ArKZY8MZ0H6E972x0E12eGKs0NUE ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: dc; drugs; experimentaldrugs; healthcare; judiciary; ruling; scotus
Where exactly did this 'right' to someone else's research come from, anyway?
1 posted on 08/07/2007 6:18:17 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: zendari

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.


2 posted on 08/07/2007 6:29:23 PM PDT by farlander (Try not to wear milk bone underwear - it's a dog eat dog financial world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farlander
And the next step would've been forcing HMOs to pay for experimental drugs, of course.

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!

3 posted on 08/07/2007 6:37:10 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith ("He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week." Romney on Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

i am guessing you are right that this is an insurance issue and forcing insurance companies to pay for experimental drugs.


4 posted on 08/07/2007 6:44:29 PM PDT by Oystir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: farlander

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.


5 posted on 08/07/2007 7:00:18 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: zendari
It's not clear (at least to me), what the court is saying. The article states:

"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.

6 posted on 08/07/2007 7:14:14 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zendari
Dying for Lifesaving Drugs
7 posted on 08/07/2007 7:32:45 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zendari

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.


8 posted on 08/07/2007 7:44:48 PM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marty60

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.


9 posted on 08/07/2007 8:17:08 PM PDT by catroina54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: zendari

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.


10 posted on 08/07/2007 8:53:02 PM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl

This is outrageous interference of the government in individual autonomy and the right of contract, bottom line.


11 posted on 08/08/2007 7:42:44 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: zendari
Somehow I can't find anything in the Constitution that permits the Feds to have any say in who gets drugs and who doesn't, whether the drugs are experimental or not.
12 posted on 08/08/2007 12:38:02 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney (My book is out. Read excerpts at http://www.thejusticecooperative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

You’re forgetting the good old Commerce Clause.


13 posted on 08/08/2007 6:36:03 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: catroina54

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.


14 posted on 08/08/2007 7:25:40 PM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

If you merely forgot the < /s> tag, fine. If you were serious, you need to be smacked.


15 posted on 08/10/2007 8:58:37 AM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

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?


16 posted on 08/10/2007 7:22:38 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

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...


17 posted on 08/10/2007 8:22:01 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson