Dying Patients Won't Get Experimental Drugs

Spideynw · 01-16-2008, 01:16 PM

Dying Patients Won't Get Experimental Drugs | News & Commentary | The Foundation for Economic Education: In Brief

The Supreme Court turned down an appeal Monday that sought a right for dying patients to try promising and potentially life-saving drugs that have not yet won government approval. Instead, the court let stand a policy of the Food and Drug Administration that generally forbids the use of experimental and unapproved drugs to treat patients in the United States. The court's action is a setback for tens of thousands of dying patients who cannot wait for years until these promising drugs are shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials, said lawyers for the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs.

Does anyone seriously think we should keep the FDA around?

7960 · 01-16-2008, 01:22 PM

The court's action is a setback for tens of thousands of dying patients who cannot wait for years until these promising drugs are shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials, said lawyers for the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs.

And what if they're not safe and effective and it turns out doctors and researchers use humans as living experiments?

(I'm guessing) the FDA doesn't want the stack of lawsuits they'll get if doctors are allowed to just pour any drug down someone's throat to see what happens. A patient can't sign away liability....if they're given a year to live and a doc gives him an experimental drug and he dies right there the doc is liable (or at least will spend tens of thousands defending himself in court).

Spideynw · 01-16-2008, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

And what if they're not safe and effective and it turns out doctors and researchers use humans as living experiments?

(I'm guessing) the FDA doesn't want the stack of lawsuits they'll get if doctors are allowed to just pour any drug down someone's throat to see what happens. A patient can't sign away liability....if they're given a year to live and a doc gives him an experimental drug and he dies right there the doc is liable (or at least will spend tens of thousands defending himself in court).

Um, if a human decides it is ok to be used as a living experiment, what is the problem?

And you are wrong, a patient can sign away liability.

Stylerod · 01-16-2008, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

And what if they're not safe and effective and it turns out doctors and researchers use humans as living experiments?

(I'm guessing) the FDA doesn't want the stack of lawsuits they'll get if doctors are allowed to just pour any drug down someone's throat to see what happens. A patient can't sign away liability....if they're given a year to live and a doc gives him an experimental drug and he dies right there the doc is liable (or at least will spend tens of thousands defending himself in court).

Stylerod · 01-16-2008, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Um, if a human decides it is ok to be used as a living experiment, what is the problem?

And you are wrong, a patient can sign away liability.

They might be able to, but you know if the person suffers horribly from some new experimental drug and dies in HUGE amounts of pain because of it the family will just then sue.

No, I think the FDA is doing the right thing for the most part.

ballz2wallz · 01-16-2008, 01:43 PM

They can always join the clinical trials

WickedLou9 · 01-16-2008, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

They might be able to, but you know if the person suffers horribly from some new experimental drug and dies in HUGE amounts of pain because of it the family will just then sue.

No, I think the FDA is doing the right thing for the most part.

I think if you are guranteed to die in the immediate future from some illness or disease you would probably take that chance. I would. Why should the government tell me that I can't? I know it's experimental and it might not work, or it might hurt me even more. If you are going to die anyway, might as well take a 10% chance over a 0% chance. And... if it works, it has the potential to speed approval of potentially lifesaving drugs. Lawsuits could easily be fended off by having the patient sign a waiver.

7960 · 01-16-2008, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Um, if a human decides it is ok to be used as a living experiment, what is the problem?

At the risk of invoking

, it puts us one step closer to nazi experimentation?

And you are wrong, a patient can sign away liability.

No. You can sign all the papers you want, but at the end of the day if a doctor gives you a drug he says may help you and it kills you, your family can sue him.

If you're suggesting we change that, ok. But that's how it is. No matter what you signed he's going to spend tens of thousands defending himself (or his insurance company is).

hsmith · 01-16-2008, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

At the risk of invoking , it puts us one step closer to nazi experimentation?

No. You can sign all the papers you want, but at the end of the day if a doctor gives you a drug he says may help you and it kills you, your family can sue him.

If you're suggesting we change that, ok. But that's how it is. No matter what you signed he's going to spend tens of thousands defending himself (or his insurance company is).

How is volunteering stepping closer to "nazi experimentation"?

Spideynw · 01-16-2008, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

No. You can sign all the papers you want, but at the end of the day if a doctor gives you a drug he says may help you and it kills you, your family can sue him.

If you're suggesting we change that, ok. But that's how it is. No matter what you signed he's going to spend tens of thousands defending himself (or his insurance company is).

And if a doctor wants to take the risk, what is the problem?

Regardless, the FDA is not even suggesting this as the reason for not allowing it.

Spideynw · 01-16-2008, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

They might be able to, but you know if the person suffers horribly from some new experimental drug and dies in HUGE amounts of pain because of it the family will just then sue.

No, I think the FDA is doing the right thing for the most part.

That is not why the FDA is making it illegal. They are making it illegal because a patient might die (one that is already terminally ill), not because the patient may die and then sue. Even the FDA is not that stupid.

Publius · 01-16-2008, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think if you are guranteed to die in the immediate future from some illness or disease you would probably take that chance. I would. Why should the government tell me that I can't? I know it's experimental and it might not work, or it might hurt me even more. If you are going to die anyway, might as well take a 10% chance over a 0% chance. And... if it works, it has the potential to speed approval of potentially lifesaving drugs. Lawsuits could easily be fended off by having the patient sign a waiver.

i find it interesting you don't support this regulation, yet have no problem with California installing thermostat controllers in people's homes.

ballz2wallz · 01-16-2008, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

i find it interesting you don't support this regulation, yet have no problem with California installing thermostat controllers in people's homes.

WickedLou9 · 01-16-2008, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

i find it interesting you don't support this regulation, yet have no problem with California installing thermostat controllers in people's homes.

No one's life is on the line with the thermostat issue. People will actually live or die on this ruling. I am generally for things that have the greatest good for the most number of people while balancing that against personal freedom, the degree of intrusion on personal freedom for whatever it is we are talking about.

With the thermostat issue, the plan results in fewer power outages for everyone while intruding less than previously had been done ( IMO, a total power outage is quite a big deal where a partial outage on one system in your home is not )

In this case, the potential benefit is actual lives being saved. I can't see any drawbacks to allowing this. Just so long as the patient is fully informed of the risks and signs a waiver attesting to such.
The FDA disallowing the use of these drugs is a big intrusion and results in no benefit to anyone.

RockPusher · 01-16-2008, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think if you are guranteed to die in the immediate future from some illness or disease you would probably take that chance. I would. Why should the government tell me that I can't? I know it's experimental and it might not work, or it might hurt me even more. If you are going to die anyway, might as well take a 10% chance over a 0% chance. And... if it works, it has the potential to speed approval of potentially lifesaving drugs. Lawsuits could easily be fended off by having the patient sign a waiver.

Agreed. Terminally ill try all kinds of alternative treatments already, some of them are not advisable for their condition. It is their right to hope.

I would try too.

bheld · 01-16-2008, 02:55 PM

I can see both sides. I definitely appreciate the ethical considerations when it comes to a patient that is desperate and would be willing to try anything. It's easy to see how a situation like that could be abused. On the other hand nobody likes denying somebody a potential cure.

RockPusher · 01-16-2008, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

I can see both sides. I definitely appreciate the ethical considerations when it comes to a patient that is desperate and would be willing to try anything. It's easy to see how a situation like that could be abused. On the other hand nobody likes denying somebody a potential cure.

Or their right to hope.

Spideynw · 01-16-2008, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

I can see both sides. I definitely appreciate the ethical considerations when it comes to a patient that is desperate and would be willing to try anything. It's easy to see how a situation like that could be abused. On the other hand nobody likes denying somebody a potential cure.

No, it could not be "abused".

kinggovernor · 01-16-2008, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

No, it could not be "abused".

sure it could, people are misdiagnosed with terminal cancer then put some new drug in that kill them. Before they die it is realized that it was a complete mistake, who do you blame then?

Spideynw · 01-16-2008, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

sure it could, people are misdiagnosed with terminal cancer then put some new drug in that kill them. Before they die it is realized