Right to Try Law A Step Forward?

[Innovo]

Was watching a news segment at the gym the other day regarding Colorado's Right to Try Law.

 

Essentially it's providing access to "experimental" drugs which are currently undergoing clinical trial to terminally Ill patients (where otherwise it would be illegal).

 

 

I'm currently undecided on where I stand with it. On one hand it could be considered a step forward as it could lead to positive result and the prolongation of life and on the other could shorten an already short life expectancy.

 

Would we want drugs which could potentially raise human life expectancies to over 120. It's sounds like a great idea, but then when it comes down to a financial aspect, the cost of maintaining billions of centenarians becomes an obvious burden.

 

From a medical standpoint, the prolongation of human life of any form is in tune with the Hippocratic Oath.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/05/19/the-false-hope-of-colorados-right-to-try-act/

[MD2015]

By act of commission to take steps resulting in death is criminal. Allowing someone to die by deliberate act of omission is tantamount to criminality.

[Birdy]

I do not like them as I think they create a loophole big enough for quacks to drive a truck through.

 

Every time I hear of these, I'm reminded of a Huston, TX researcher who has kept his 'miracle drug' in clinical trials for nearly four decades without publishing results, has been shut down by the FDA repeatedly, and has been found to be incorrectly classifying patient responses, fudging adverse event reports, amongst other serious breeches of ethic. By all appearances, it appers his drugs don't work at all and have dangerous side effects. But because of some testimonials (which don't hold up to scrutiny) and this physician telling people he's their only hope, and his lawyer's talent at manipulating compassionate use protocols and the IND process, people beg the FDA to let them try it.

 

Laws like this are just great ways for the (as Dr Gorski at Science-Based Medicine sarcastically calls them) "brave, maverick doctors" like that guy to potentially put even more people in danger by preying on desperately ill patients.

 

Compassionate use provisions already exist. I do not think tht even broader access needs to be codified into law.

 

Edit: I posted this before I saw at the bottom of the article that they refer to Dr Gorski's piece at SBM. Give it a read.

[rmorelan]

Was watching a news segment at the gym the other day regarding Colorado's Right to Try Law.

 

Essentially it's providing access to "experimental" drugs which are currently undergoing clinical trial to terminally Ill patients (where otherwise it would be illegal).

 

 

I'm currently undecided on where I stand with it. On one hand it could be considered a step forward as it could lead to positive result and the prolongation of life and on the other could shorten an already short life expectancy.

 

Would we want drugs which could potentially raise human life expectancies to over 120. It's sounds like a great idea, but then when it comes down to a financial aspect, the cost of maintaining billions of centenarians becomes an obvious burden.

 

From a medical standpoint, the prolongation of human life of any form is in tune with the Hippocratic Oath.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/05/19/the-false-hope-of-colorados-right-to-try-act/

 

depends on how you define "first do no harm"

not that it matters - the hippocratic oath is rather dated to say the least.

 

Current ethical thinking has evolved beyond it initial limited perspectives. As you know a whole host of modern medical ethical concepts were not supported by the oath. Probably the main remaining aspect is professionalism - the direction to operate without selfish intention towards helping those in a doctor's care.