Federal Appeals Court Agrees To Rehear Case On Whether People Should Have Access To Experimental Medications
Main Category: Public HealthAlso Included In: Rehabilitation / Physical Therapy
Article Date: 24 Nov 2006 - 11:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() | |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday vacated an earlier decision that would have provided terminally ill patients with expanded access to experimental medications and likely will rehear the case next summer, Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal reports (Wilde Mathews, Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal, 11/21). In the case, the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs and the Washington Legal Foundation in 2003 filed a lawsuit against FDA to obtain access to experimental medications for terminally ill cancer patients (AP/Houston Chronicle, 11/22). The lawsuit asked FDA to provide a special initial approval to experimental medications that appear effective and allow their sale and distribution to terminally ill patients who have no other approved treatment options. FDA argued that programs currently exist to provide experimental medications to terminally ill patients and that increased access to such treatments would lead to unacceptable risk. In May, a three-judge panel of the court ruled that terminally ill patients have a "right of self-preservation" and should have access to experimental medications that have not reached Phase II clinical trials. Pharmaceutical companies use Phase II trials, which involve between 20 and 80 participants, to determine the safety, but not the effectiveness, of experimental medications. According to the 2-1 decision, which reversed the dismissal of the lawsuit by a lower court, "barring a terminally ill patient from the use of a potentially lifesaving treatment impinges on this right of self-preservation." The decision cited a 1990 Supreme Court case that established the "right to die" for terminally ill patients who refuse treatment and said the reverse also applies (Kaufman, Washington Post, 5/3). FDA appealed the decision and asked the full court to rehear the case.
Comments
Richard Samp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, said, "We had asked that the rehearing not be granted, but we are confident when all the judges on the court hear the facts, they will agree with the original panel's decision." FDA spokesperson Kristen Neese in a statement said, "We believe that access to lifesaving treatments is essential but need to find the right balance between earlier access and evaluation of safety" (AP/Houston Chronicle, 11/22).
"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
Visit our public health section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/57347.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/57347.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.





