Right to experimental treatment: FDA new drug approval, constitutional rights, and the public's health.
On May 2, 2006, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a startling opinion, Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach, held that terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other available options have a constitutional right to experimental treatment that FDA has not yet approved. Although ultimately overturned by the full court, Abigail Alliance generated considerable interest from various constituencies. Meanwhile, FDA proposed similar regulatory amendments, as have lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress. But proponents of expanded access fail to consider public health and consumer safety concerns. In particular, allowing patients to try unproven treatments, outside of controlled clinical trials risks both the study's outcome and the health of patients who might benefit from the deliberate, careful process of new drug approval as it currently operates under FDA's auspices.
Leonard
Elizabeth Weeks
EW
University of Kansas School of Law, USA.
D057176:Compassionate Use Trials / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004335:Drug and Narcotic Control / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D015507:Drugs, Investigational / Q000600:supply & distribution*; D006297:Health Services Accessibility / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D028701:Patient Rights / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D019452:Terminally Ill / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States
D015507:Drugs, Investigational