Comments on: Court: No Unapproved Meds For The Dying
Federal Appeals Court Says Terminally Ill Patients Have No Constitutional Right To Experimental Drugs
Add a Comment See all 65 Comments
- The paranoia is thick here. People die - real living, breathing people - because an experimental drug, still going through FDA approval, is denied to them. The company can't let you have it even if you want it. Add that to our inhumane pain management philosophies, where terminal patients are treated as drug seeking addicts - it's just insanely stupid!
When you are terminal - a critical word - terminal - you are going to die, we've got nothing that is saving you - the law needs to recognize that this is a very different state than a person with a life to live. If an experimental drug might save their life - let them try it! It's their life, their choice should be the only relevant factor. And likewise for pain meds - it doesn't matter if they were to get addicted - they're dying! Be human, and let them avoid dying in horrible pain!
Yeah, there are idiots who prey on the dying, the sick, desperation. But that's not drugs seeking FDA approval, and the law can take care of the quacks and thieves. That's not what the case is about - it's about real drugs, from real drug companies, in testing to be approved, but not there yet. And yes - drug companies save lives. They make money - anyone who disapproves of this, I hope is working for free at their job. - Reply to this comment
- Look, if you don't want to take medication. Fine. Don't do it. If you get cancer, then don't waste your time on treatment. But if you do, please know there are a mass of providers that will take excellent care of you and look for a CURE through researched methods, not conjecture.
by seandgreen
Every doctor I encountered was fu(king quack then. all 12 of'em.
but then, I guess, thats what you are as well.
Also sounds you need some bedside manner skills,
judging by how you're responding to my posts - Reply to this comment
- What this law is try to control are situations like those people who say they are sick so it%u2019s OK for them to grow hundreds of pounds of marijuana and make hundreds of thousands of dollars while more than half the pot they sell ends up in this nations school systems destroying the health, memories, educations and futures of literally tens of millions of our children.
Posted by marcpcbs at 09:52 PM : Aug 07, 2007
Oh no, That evil temptress Marijuana is back. It will steal our children, run hide. What a joke. - Reply to this comment
- I find this ruling appalling! If a patient is terminal, it means they'll be dead soon. No hope left. They should have the right to try last resort options including unapproved experimental drugs.
My uncle is an excellent example. In 2000, he had a heart transplant at Stanford University Medical Center and was placed on anti-rejection medications that supress the immune system. A few months later he developed a severe fungus infection in his lungs. This was a common fungus that immune systems in most healthy people can fight off, but because of the anti-rejection medications, he couldn't beat it. Stanford tried every anti-fungal medication that was approved by the FDA and nothing worked. This fungus was resistant to everything on the market. So Stanford got special approval from the FDA to give him an experimental drug that wasn't even in human clinical trials yet. Risky? Yes! But without it he was dead anyway. He WANTED to take the risk. He wanted to live! This drug worked. It killed the infection and my uncle returned to excellent health and a life full of fishing, hunting and spending time with his family. Without that unapproved experiemntal drug, he would be dead. What right do these self-rightous sanctimonious "do-gooders" have to deny ANYONE a last ditch hope????? This law is WRONG!!!!! - Reply to this comment
- The court ruling as I understand it does not stop an individual doing anything they want to do. No court can actually do that. You can waste what life, and money you have left on hopeless, and desperate acts of self-destruction, and self-abuse all you want to. You can let the witchdoctors, con artist, preachers, and faith healers use, and rape you all you want to.
But the court I think, correctly chose to not legitimize it by making it legal. There are legitimate experimental drug trials already. Maybe the government should expand them. But they are there.
Drug trials hopefully with very, very strict criteria for patient education, and consent. And very, very strict requirements for strictly unbiased, totally independent medical, scientific, monitoring, documentation, and full disclosure of all results. Whether good results or bad. Whether profitable, or unprofitable.
See, there is know limit to the number of people that want to just exploit desperate people. They don't really give a D*M about you. They just want what they can get out of you. Then they will just kick you to the curb. But you can still be their sl*ts, and b*tch*s if you want to. The courts just wont sanction it.
Best of luck! - Reply to this comment
- For too long we the people have been the guinea pigs, Doctors have no vested interest in "curing" their patients, but to keep them locked into the cycle of medicne for life, which ruins the patients lives.
Posted by slim1h2o at 07:59 AM : Aug 08, 2007
I think you better up that Haldol dose buddy! - Reply to this comment
- Go eat an herb or something, and quit writing such nit-witted remarks.
Posted by seandgreen at 09:16 AM : Aug 08, 2007
Well, Apparently, being a doctor you have that GOD mentality, because you think you're right and we're wrong! Or is it that you went to school an extra 7 yrs , you're smarter than us?, either way, I'm glad you are not my doctor, you'd be fired! Nit Wit - Reply to this comment
- I'm not sure if I have this correct but is it the court's ruling that if an individual does not have a constitutional right to an experimental medicine, even if they and a physician can obtain one, then that also means the government has the right to deny this patient that experimental medication? Where exactly in the Constitution is the government granted that right and authority? I'm no lawyer but this smells a bit fishy to me.
On the flip side, I can see a potential slippery slope if the court had agreed with the plaintiff. Every once in a while (with unfortunately depressing regularity it seems) we read these stories of morons who kill their kids by 'treating' them with some unapproved medical practice (largely a wacky religion thing I think), in effect denying them real medicines that could save them. Whose blood doesn't boil when that happens? Could these parents make the same arguments that the government should not be involved in the treatment of their diseases or their kids'? Just wondering... - Reply to this comment
- Speaking as one who has been told by his doctors that he should go home and live what little time he has left to him as best he can this issue is particulary disturbing to me.
My thoughts are as follows:
1- What possible reason would anyone have to keep lifesaving drugs from the dying; providing, of course, that they endanger no one else?
2- Drug companies could utilize the data they obtain from the results of such use of their drug(s) and may actually want to donate the cost of their medication for this purpose.
3- From the perspective of the dying I certainly would volunteer to take an experimental drug if it offerred hope of reasonable results. Unfortunately in my case this is not possible.
4- Although terminal, I can't even get decent pain meds because some desk jockey at the federal government believes he/she knows better than my bevy of highly-trained specialists what's best for me. No surpise that they would keep the dying from life saving drugs, too.
5- Isn't it telling that it's the Bush appointees that have done this? No surprise there. When is this menace going to be squashed?
6- This issue might be readdressed from a different angle; one that does not include constitutional involvement. Perhaps then it might have a chance. It'll have to wait until the dictator is out of office, though. - Reply to this comment
- I think a lot of the people posting here are confused about the term 'drugs'. Drugs do not necessarily mean pain killers or uppers! It can also be something that will kill the cancer cells, or bio-genetics to treat one of the more insidious diseases like Parkinson's, diabetes, lupus, neurofibromatosis, etc. There are many deadly diseases that can kill painfully or painlessly, but kill nonetheless.
I think a person should be granted the opportunity to try the experimental drugs if they choose. They have nothing to lose, and possibly so much to gain! - Reply to this comment
- This should be called Playing God for a Dollar.
For far too long the dollar has ruled what we the people should and should not do. Too many vested interest groups pervade our lives and not in our best interests. Sadly humanity and caring comes far down the list behind the the value of Stocks. The sick, the elderly and the poor are not in the equation, profit by the few is the order of the day.
by drinuk
Wow you took the right out of my mouth. In fact you said it better than I could.
For too long we the people have been the guinea pigs, Doctors have no vested interest in "curing" their patients, but to keep them locked into the cycle of medicne for life, which ruins the patients lives. - Reply to this comment
- GrammaWhamma, There would be little point in doing as you say because they have no interest whatsoever in finding a cure. What we need is the freedom and genuine desire to fund honest independent research.
We need to expose the corruption root and branch throughout the pharmaceutical and medical industry and we needs laws which will severely punish politicians and government officials who take even a single dime from vested interest to the detriment of the public. - Reply to this comment
- I am a retired nurse. My husband died of cancer. If I was diagnosed with "terminal" cancer I would volunteer to be a guinea pig...not to be cured...but to perhaps help find a cure for the future generation.
- Reply to this comment
- This should be called Playing God for a Dollar.
For far too long the dollar has ruled what we the people should and should not do. Too many vested interest groups pervade our lives and not in our best interests. Sadly humanity and caring comes far down the list behind the the value of Stocks. The sick, the elderly and the poor are not in the equation, profit by the few is the order of the day.
When you read that the FDA has banned a Natural Organic medicine, you can put your shirt on the fact that 1) It Works. 2) It cannot be patented. 3)The action has been instigated by Big Pharma. (Who of course control the FDA)
The sad truth regarding this story is that Cancer, Aids, MS and many other terminal conditions are Big Business, Cancer is a very profitable industry and there is no profit in a cure. We have to do it ourselves because Big Pharma and their clandestine supporters in Government will not. - Reply to this comment
- "Hmmm...
Once more a Court decides what is or is not ok for someone to take during serious illness.
If someone is in a terminal condition and that person believes that "rarified goat dung" will help, they should be able to get it for free and use it if they so desire..."
dakotaclark
Aahhh...
Once again inhumanity proudly rears its ugly head. Josef Mengele would have agreed with everything you have to say, and forward, about common human compassion, and the remedies for its disease.
Honestly, look him up on the Internet.
Inferring that those seeking experimental treatment for terminal illness simply seek "rarified goat dung" is inhuman, not inhumane.
Mengele would be proud of your bold and audacious discount of human life.
Congratulations.
ST
"Cruelty and brutality are evidence of evil, not strength."
SearingTruth
A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com - Reply to this comment
- TO TAKE AMERICA BACK, WE MUST EDUCATE OURSELVES, AS OUR SCHOOLS HAVE FAILED TO DO THIS ADEQUATELY!
STEP 1:
Watch -- WWW.ZEITGEISTMOVIE.COM
(scroll below the screen to see the links associated with the website and look at all of them, after the movie plays, or you can download the movie instead of watching the stream online)
STEP 2:
Go to -- WWW.SEARINGTRUTH.COM
Read his short novel: "A Future of the Brave", and most definitely click on the 'Forward Media' button on the left column and VISIT EVERY WEB SITE LINKED IN THAT SECTION!
STEP 3:
Share all of this with your friends, family, and coworkers.
With any hope, someday our idividual rights and freedoms will take precedent over the control of the elite few.
Someday, this BULL *** will hopefully stop! - Reply to this comment
- The big pharma companies shovel drugs in our face every day, on TV. These drugs are later to be determined as "risky" by the same corrupt organization (FDA) that originally approved the drug.
These same pharma companies brainwash the public and corrupt the politicians into thinking that cheaper drugs from Canada are "dangerous". Thus, they create laws that forbid Americans, (some in desperate situations), from trying to improve their own health in a less costly manner.
So with that I ask, how the H3LL could an "experimental" drug be so bad that a court decides them to be off limits. And who in this case was the defendant? The foundation that fought for the right to use such drugs was the plantiff. Was the big pharma companies trying to, once again, prevent Americans from having complete access and control over their own health?!
There is a natural human instinct to do anything to save oneself or another fellow human being. Essentially, that basic instinct and the actions resulting from that instinct can all be called "experimental". For a terminally ill patient, either the result of dying faster or having one's health improve and living longer, is clearly a 'win-win' situation! It's clear that some courts lack the sociological and philosophical foresight to realize that. - Reply to this comment
- Hmmm...
Once more a Court decides what is or is not ok for someone to take during serious illness.
If someone is in a terminal condition and that person believes that "rarified goat dung" will help, they should be able to get it for free and use it if they so desire... - Reply to this comment
- "I lost my dad to cancer one year ago and when someone you love is that ill, what the courts think seems so irrelevant. I would have done anything, legal or not."
doevam
My fellow human being, I am so sorry for the loss of your father, and want you to know that the salvation of innocent human life is always legal.
In fact, it is the most legal cause of all.
And yet I understand your plight. Humanity, and the law meant to support it, does not exist in America anymore.
I am anguished that your father, as my mother and father, became ill under the ping pong rule of the Republican/Democratic parties.
And no, I have no political axe to grind. I am not a member of any political party, and do not work for any political organization or candidate. I am simply a human being like you.
I grieve with you, for all of our loved ones.
And I have a plan to end our anguish, outlined in "A Future of the Brave".
ST
"Who are we then?
We are compassion.
The most precious resource in our universe."
SearingTruth
"I understand. For I have been disappointed also. Humanity, overall, almost always disappoints me. However humans, individually, almost always fill me with hope. This has led me to the conviction that humanity is good; it is our organization and ideologies that have proven pitifully and woefully ineffective and inadequate."
SearingTruth
A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com - Reply to this comment
- F*CK THE COURT~!!!! WE DON"T NEED OR WANT GOVERNMENT MEDDLING IN OUR PRIVATE AFFAIRS!!! F*CK YOU TOO bUSH!!!!
- Reply to this comment
