lily
08-08-2007, 02:21 AM
If people are willing to take the risk, why stop them? I love Judge Rogers opinion. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20163190/)
Court denies terminally ill experimental meds
FDA approval process can take years but dying can't have early access
Updated: 23 minutes ago
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.
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.
“Terminally ill patients desperately need curative treatments,†Judge Thomas
B. Griffith wrote for the majority. But “their deaths can certainly be
hastened by the use of a potentially toxic drug with no proven therapeutic
benefit.â€
Food and Drug Administration approval of drugs generally requires extensive
testing that can involve years of trials and thousands of patients.
The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs and the
Washington Legal Foundation sued the FDA in 2003, seeking access for
terminally ill patients to drugs that have undergone preliminary safety
testing in as few as 20 people but have yet to be approved.
FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan said the agency was pleased with the decision,
which she said considered the public’s safety and the need for access to
experimental drugs.
Abigail Alliance founder Frank Burroughs pledged an appeal to the Supreme
Court. Burroughs’ daughter, Abigail, was denied access to experimental
cancer drugs and died in 2001. The drug she was seeking was approved years
later.
“What the opinion by Judge Griffith is saying is, ’We don’t want to risk one
life or a few lives, even at the expense of the lives of hundreds or
thousands of people,â€â€™ Burroughs said. “The logic of that escapes me.â€
A ‘startling’ ruling
In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Judith W. Rogers called the ruling
“startling.†She said courts have established the right “to marry, to
fornicate, to have children, to control the education and upbringing of
children, to perform varied sexual acts in private, and to control one’s own
body even if it results in one’s own death or the death of a fetus.â€
“But the right to try to save one’s life is left out in the cold despite its
textual anchor in the right to life,†Rogers wrote.
Rogers was joined by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg. The case cut across
party lines, with conservative and liberal judges taking both sides of the
dispute.
The court noted that there are government programs that provide access to
experimental drugs in certain situations. It said the matter is not closed
and said Congress might be a better venue than the courts to address the
issue.
Burroughs said he expects such legislation to be introduced this session.
Both the Senate and House have considered such legislation but it languished
in committee.
Court denies terminally ill experimental meds
FDA approval process can take years but dying can't have early access
Updated: 23 minutes ago
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.
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.
“Terminally ill patients desperately need curative treatments,†Judge Thomas
B. Griffith wrote for the majority. But “their deaths can certainly be
hastened by the use of a potentially toxic drug with no proven therapeutic
benefit.â€
Food and Drug Administration approval of drugs generally requires extensive
testing that can involve years of trials and thousands of patients.
The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs and the
Washington Legal Foundation sued the FDA in 2003, seeking access for
terminally ill patients to drugs that have undergone preliminary safety
testing in as few as 20 people but have yet to be approved.
FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan said the agency was pleased with the decision,
which she said considered the public’s safety and the need for access to
experimental drugs.
Abigail Alliance founder Frank Burroughs pledged an appeal to the Supreme
Court. Burroughs’ daughter, Abigail, was denied access to experimental
cancer drugs and died in 2001. The drug she was seeking was approved years
later.
“What the opinion by Judge Griffith is saying is, ’We don’t want to risk one
life or a few lives, even at the expense of the lives of hundreds or
thousands of people,â€â€™ Burroughs said. “The logic of that escapes me.â€
A ‘startling’ ruling
In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Judith W. Rogers called the ruling
“startling.†She said courts have established the right “to marry, to
fornicate, to have children, to control the education and upbringing of
children, to perform varied sexual acts in private, and to control one’s own
body even if it results in one’s own death or the death of a fetus.â€
“But the right to try to save one’s life is left out in the cold despite its
textual anchor in the right to life,†Rogers wrote.
Rogers was joined by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg. The case cut across
party lines, with conservative and liberal judges taking both sides of the
dispute.
The court noted that there are government programs that provide access to
experimental drugs in certain situations. It said the matter is not closed
and said Congress might be a better venue than the courts to address the
issue.
Burroughs said he expects such legislation to be introduced this session.
Both the Senate and House have considered such legislation but it languished
in committee.