Pros And Cons Of Right-To-Try Law

Although the FDA prolongs this process for safety concerns, I personally feel that they should be able to expedite their approval. The reason for expedition is because more and more people are being diagnosed with multiple health issues. Some people are more desperate then others and feel they can benefit from the drug as it is. Therefore, if a person wants to take a drug that has not been approved yet, then they should be able to

The greatest moral objection to the RCTs is that a physician has a duty to their patient to give them the best treatment possible. However, the physician does not truly know which drug is going to be better when they initiate the trial. During the trial, neither treatment is preferred over the other. This is an example of “individual equipoise” is the requirement that “investigator” him or herself be in a state of genuine uncertainty concerning the efficacy of treatments A and B. In clinical equipoise, there is a genuine uncertainty within the medical community about the merits of both treatments. Among physicians, there are some who may believe that a certain alternative treatment option is the best. However, even though there is a physician

Another question we come across in this case is "Should these pharmaceutical companies have a moral obligation to make the drugs available to the people who they performed clinical trials on?". Again we clearly should see that the pharmaceutical companies should allow the access of these drugs to the people that are being used to test their products. There is a huge risk for these people who are taking a new drug, not knowing exactly what the outcome can be and are merely treated as guinea pigs for the

an NDA/BLA to FDA as they are ready, rather than the standard requirement to submit

Another issue is that the Right to Try Act is quite deceptive. Many patients assume that Right to Try allows them to pursue all known treatment options without any consequences. However, some of the state laws include the possibility that when one decides to utilize a developmental drug, they may lose their rights to hospice care or home health care (Bateman-House, Kimberly, Redman, Dubler, & Caplan, 2015).

Once the decision process is made and accepted by the patient, physicians must report all prescriptions for lethal medications to the state’s Health Authority and Vital Records. As of 1999, in the State of Oregon, pharmacists must be informed of the prescribed medication 's ultimate use (Death with Dignity Act, 2015).The physician must also document the elements of an informed decision in the patient’s medical chart. The elements consist of the diagnosis, prognosis and potential risks associated with taking the medication. Result of taking the medication as well as the feasible alternatives, which include but are not limited to comfort care, hospice, and symptom control. The physician must document all reminders to the patient of his or her “Right to Rescind” the request to hasten death and document the physician’s recommendation to take the medication with another person in attendance in a non-public site. The physician must also obtain a consultation from another physician (the “consulting physician”) to confirm the diagnosis and prognosis (Pollard, 2015)

A drug can get priority Review designation if offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. A priority Review means that the time it takes FDA to review a New Drug application (NDA) is reduced. The goal for completing priority review is six months whereas Standard review process takes ten months. The priority review status can apply both to drugs that are used to treat serious disease and drugs for less serious illness. The FDA is giving additional attention and resources towards the drug approval process which have potential significant advances in a treatment. In the period 1999–2011, 100 FDA-priority review pharmaceuticals were approved by both the FDA and the EMA. The majority of the products were first submitted to and approved by the FDA. The FDA has a significantly shorter drug application review time than the EMA.

Kasman, Deborah L. “When is Medical Treatment Futile.”Publish Medical Center (2004).NCBI.Web. 19 Oct. 2004. Kasman researches a difficult ethical conundrum in clinical medicine which is determining when to withdraw. His paper elucidates the concept of “medical futility” and suggests means for physicians to negotiate transitions from aggressive treatment to comfort ones. Kasman draws from Schular Griffin Trooter in his research and how he delineates a clear definition of Medical Futility that corresponds with concepts stated by American Medical Associations Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Trotter clarifies that “medical futility” occurs when: There is a goal, there is an action and activity aimed at achieving

When the constitution was being drafted there was a divide between federalists, and anti-federalists. Federalists focused on the insufficiencies within the Articles of Confederation. In their opinion, the national government required the power to tax the states and individual citizens, the Congressional authority to regulate commerce between states, and the Congressional ability to raise funds to for a strong national defense system. Meanwhile, anti-federalists feared that the proposed Constitution could lead to a disproportionately influential national government. Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers #17 that, “affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object.”

A physician must understand that when it comes to deciding to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment it is ultimately the patient’s decision unless the patient is not competent enough to make this choice. I believe that a person can lose their life at any point. Death is certain and no one can run from it. In my opinion, a patient’s autonomy is of utmost importance anytime during healthcare however the physician can name some recommendations of what would be the best option for the patient. When it comes to patients they deserve to be treated with respect and ultimately be treated as an end not as a means to an end.

market to help cure them. The argument being, although the people are terminally ill, they are equally important to God and have the right to dignity, and no matter what the society should dedicate their resources to help give them an extended or healthier life. This problem is inherent in FDA policy, it does not speed up or give preferable treatment to medications that help those who are terminally ill, and instead allows those people to die instead of giving them potential treatment. A great example of this was when Diego Morris, an 11-year old, was denied the access to medication, which had not been approved by the FDA but had in other countries, which would save his life; he then had to fly to London to receive the drug, which in his case is lucky since he had the financial resources to get to another country. The other principle, Rights & Responsibilities, states that every human person, within this context, has the right to affordable and widespread healthcare. Within the FDA’s medical control, this is not the case. Due to the long periods of trial, the amount of money required to get a medication passed becomes an extreme amount. Thus, when the medication does become available its price is insanely high due to these factors, so even if the illness doesn’t kill them, they could be potentially homeless by the end of it. Also, the widespread

By the 1980s, at least in the United States, additionally the Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA) in 1990 there is a consensus on that allow the patient to refuse treatment given that refusing treatment may lead to death is one of the patient’s right (Koch, 1992; Bishop, Brothers, Perry, & Ahmad, 2010).

Priority Review will direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of applications for drugs that, if approved, would be significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions when compared to standard applications (FDA, 2015). Prior to approval, each drug marketed in the United States must go

There is compelling evidence that individual patients, whole populations and health systems can be harmed by drug shortages, going against the ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Individual patients can be harmed if there is no treatment as equally effective as the drug in shortage and their care may be compromised, delayed or prohibited. There is also a possibility of the patient being harmed by taking an alternative drug if the agent has unexpected or unmanageable side effects and risks. Even more, if a physician is forced to use alternative drugs which proper testing and efficacy are not well known, complications to the patient may arise. Institutions and governments may compromise patient safety for access by allowing re-use of single vials, allowing expired drugs to be used, allowing companies to use unapproved manufacturing processes, or expediting regulatory approval of new

Individuals seek medical treatment everyday to stay healthy, treat an illness, or to stay alive. We all seek treatment whether it is voluntary or in an emergency basis. Some individuals suffer from severe illnesses, in which they might get to a certain point and decide to refuse medical treatment because they do not want to go through the pain anymore. Doctors face at least one ethical issue on a day-to-day basis due to patients refusing medical treatment, and possibly wanting to end their lives. Every year this has become a controversial debate whether or not it is ethical for patients to refuse treatment.