mises.org — Some organizations are demanding a change in the process to permit terminally ill people to gain speedier access to possible cures. Their demands have so far been rebuffed by regulators. Here I argue the case for liberalizing the approval process. Terminally ill patients are still capable of rational assessment of their alternative choices.
Jul 24, 2006 View in Crawl 4
qwickoneJul 24, 2006
So even if this happens, it would apply to such a marginal section of the population that it's essentially pointless. If you're terminally ill, chances are, you've exhausted your life savings because insurance finds ways to screw you over. So if you somehow have the money left over to buy these drugs, it's EXTREMELY unlikely that the insurance company will pay for it (they dont pay for experimental drugs generally), so that's all out of pocket. In the end, it's the rich that get to take advantage of this. So instead of spending millions on lobbying for this, why don't they give the money to research foundations (like Am Cancer Society) so we can get more treatments out there faster which will be of higher quality (theoetically) since they went through the FDA process
vernsanJul 24, 2006
This may be off topic, but did anyone else accidentally read The Terminator 3 and their right to drugs?
jaxshoresJul 24, 2006
At first glance, I thought this article was about a new Terminator III movie in production.
chompyJul 24, 2006
"Um... if they're "terminally" ill... doesn't that mean there's no cure?Seriously, they're dying. Let them take whatever the hell they want."That works great, until some unscrupulous doctor tells someone they have less of a chance then they really do because there's an incentive tied to some study, or perhaps someone who isn't cognitively able to make the decision is taken advantage of by others with a similar motivation.
qentonJul 24, 2006
The big problem is if the terminally ill patent actually lives. But has long term health effects. Thereby he sues the drug company for the long term health effects. Wonderful legal system.
docdebJul 25, 2006
I can only speak to my area of expertise. With anti-neoplastic therapy patients do have choices. Patient's are often offered participation in investigational studies especially when "standard therapies" have been exhausted or no "standard therapy" exists. I generally would not advise a patient to seek a therapy with no proven benefit to the exclusion of those that have but ultimately it comes down to the patient's choice.
asdfasdfJul 25, 2006
When my anti-drug friend was dying of cancer, he finally decided to ingest the ecstacy and smoke the marijuana I've been trying to get him to do the whole time he was sick.Ironically he didn't mind the drugs the doctors were giving him, nor their side effects. It wasn't until they stopped working that he tried Ecstacy. He got out of bed and became the Zach I knew again. He spent his last few weeks just smoking marijuana mostly. Praising me, telling me this is the best thing anyone can do to a sick friend. He apologized for being hard-headed earlier and (he's religious) told me that he'll put in a good word or two about me to (his) God. I don't understand why ill patients aren't given the meds they need. Why is the DEA going into a terminally ill patient's home and stomping on his Marijuana plants? Especially when his doctor *AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA* said it's OK to use the plant? *Sigh* Innocent victims in the Drug War.
martalliJul 25, 2006
If anyone doubts that lawsuits will occur from this, look down at your mower's sticker "Do not place hand under mower while running." Now who thought to put that sticker there?
johnyaya137Jul 30, 2006
"The difference between having 2 weeks to live and 1 week to live is pretty major."Really? Because I would be hard-pressed to see the difference, what with both those figures being a doctor's best guess.So the doctor holds out a pamphlet and says, "This experimental treatment might cure you, or extend your life, or it might kill you overnight; it's your call, if you want to try it." I think that's an ethical way to approach it. Making the decision for the patient through legislation is not.
thegreatzJan 5, 2010
If your dying you should be allowed any drugs you want even if its not for therapy. Youre going to die anyway what is the government protecting them from?Do No Harm is the core of medicine. Whats more harmful than death? If the patient has a 100% chance of dying without treatment and no known treatment will work and an experimental treatment has a .000000001% chance of working but will otherwise kill its worth a shot. Youre doing more harm to the patient by condemning them to death than by using a treatment that will most likely kill them but has a small chance of saving them.