WASHINGTON, Aug. 7, 2007
Court: No Unapproved Meds For The Dying
Federal Appeals Court Says Terminally Ill Patients Have No Constitutional Right To Experimental Drugs
-
(CBS/PHOTODISC)
-
Interactive HealthWatch Explore health issues including AIDS, cancer and antibiotics.
-
Quiz Health Myths Quiz What do you REALLY know about about flu shots, arthritic pain, nightcaps, antiperspirants, and healing cuts?
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."
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.
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,"' Burroughs said. "The logic of that escapes me."
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."
"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.
A spokeswoman for the FDA did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
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.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Health
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 65 CommentsBest of luck to you.
God bless America...
Continued...
Like, do I really need this med. And why. What are the toxic effects of this drug. Are there any less invasive things I can do that will eliminate, or reduce my need to take pharmaceutical poisons daily. Like diet, exercise, and life style changes. Are there any older cheaper generic drugs I can use that are just as safe. And just as effective. Rather than the highly expensive. Less proven newer brand name drugs.
When a Doctor recommends newer brand name drugs to you. That should always send up a RED FLAG to you. When it comes to drugs, and medical treatments. Newer does not necessarily mean better. What it does mean is that the drug will be highly costly, less proven, and potentially less effective than older proven drugs. And potentially less safe. Even deadly to you. You should always be more concerned about newer drugs, and treatments. Than proven treatments that have stood the test of time. Newer drugs means brand name drugs that have only been on the market approx 5-10 years.
They don't give a D*M about you.
"Dad, what is Gradual School. Mom said she teaches Gradual School."
"Gradual School is where you go and gradually learn that you don't want to go to school anymore." (The World According To Garp) :-)
No, some drugs can have toxic effects if used inappropriately, not that they are first and foremost toxic. Eg., digoxin can be toxic but if you have congestive heart failure you're worse off foregoing treatment than risking a side effect. MOST patients, however, are treated MOST of the time, with minimal side effects. Sure, sometimes patients have adverse drug reactions, I won't deny it. But if you ask people whether they're ready to give up their medications they won't, because they're aware that the consequences of not treating their diseases are far worse. Ever seen the positive effects drugs have for patients with Parkinsons disease or schizophrenia? It's striking; antipsychotics have revolutionized psychiatry. Would you like to have surgery on your burst appendix without general anaesthesia? So, some drugs can have toxic effects (eg. anesthetics could cause respiratory arrest), but that doesn't mean you should be so fearful you deny the usefulness of therapeutics outright.
"...DA thinks you need medical supervision to use it without being injured, or killed by it's toxic effects."
Sure if you're an idiot who thinks that if one dose of digoxin is good then 10 times as much must be better.
"See you learn something new every day. Even when you have a "Ph.D in pharmacology""
Yes today I did learn something new, but I learned it from one of my graduate students!
You miss quoted me. I said you "kill, and injure millions for profit" And I stand by that. I also got the drug references that you think I'm crazy. I expect that. Since you cant really dispute the truth of what I said. And trust me. No one would hate to rely on American medical care less than I. Talk about a nightmare come true.
rational_1 - If you have a "Ph.D in pharmacology". Then you now realize what I said is true. That as far as your body is concerned. Most all drugs are first, and for most poisons. The rationale behind the FDA making a drug prescription only. Is because the drug is considered so poisones that the FDA thinks you need medical supervision to use it without being injured, or killed by it's toxic effects.
See you learn something new every day. Even when you have a "Ph.D in pharmacology"
Now I have to go work out. Lord knows. I would not want to get sick in America. :-(
Posted by seandgreen at 08:48 PM : Aug 08, 2007
I defer to the physician in the choice of antipsychotic to be used in the treatment of this case.
:-)
"Americans make up only about 2% of the world population. Yet Americans purchase, and consume almost 50% of all pharmaceutical drugs consumed"
Given that you can't do basic math (300M/6.6B = 4.5%) I don't know how much credence to give the 50% drug use part of your assertion (source?).
"This is why Americans are generally much less healthy ..."
Of course it's the doctors' fault that Americans are sedentary fat slobs at much higher rates than people in other countries.
"...developed countries. This is why Americans live shorter life's than that of developed countries."
No, it's because they eat too many potato chips while disguised as Oprah-watching coach ornaments.
"Because all drugs are first, and for most poisons.... not supported by the science,..."
I have a Ph.D in pharmacology that says drugs have a well-supported basis for their use. We know exactly how many drugs work and why they are clinically effective. Take a look through Goodman & Gilmans The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics sometime.
"You injure, and kill patients. And that is what is happening to millions of Americans daily."
I was joking earlier with the other guy to increase his dose of Haldol (an antipsychotic used to treat paranoia), but I'm starting to think you really are paranoid.
Have a good day Doctors. LOL :-)
Americans make up only about 2% of the world population. Yet Americans purchase, and consume almost 50% of all pharmaceutical drugs consumed world wide. Because American doctors poison their patients at an astounding rate in America.
This is part of the reason Americans rank near the bottom in quality of health care of all developed countries, #37. This is why Americans are generally much less healthy than people in other developed countries. This is why Americans live shorter life's than that of developed countries. This is why the health and life expectancy of Americas children is plummeting at a tragic rate. Yet Americans spend more on health care than any other country. But has 45-60 million Americans with no insurance. And most of the people with health insurance cant afford it. Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in America.
Because all drugs are first, and for most poisons. When you put a patient on drugs and treatments, that are not supported by the science, and prudent medical care solely focused on the best interest of the patient. You injure, and kill patients. And that is what is happening to millions of Americans daily.
Do you care? Do the doctors care? Not really. They are to busy counting their money. And living those million dollar life style's. (champagne wishes, and caviar dreams) That is what they are about.
You are Doctors in name, and licenses only. What you really are is a cancer, and plague upon America that must be cutout, and stopped. :-)
Posted by john0211 at 03:22 PM : Aug 08, 2007
Sticks and stones... especially in my case since I'm a Ph.D. scientist instead of an M.D. You and I clearly differ on how great this 'problem' of doctors in it just for the money really is. Frankly I've never encountered it. My family physician cares and spends time with me and my wife and the specialists my wife saw during her pregnancies were all invariably decent and caring people. So are pretty well all the students for whom I write med school recommendation letters - they're decent kids who aren't just money grubbing scoundrels. You incur too much debt and spend too many years in medical training before you make any real money as a physician; you're better off going into real estate. I frankly just don't agree with you in your assessment of the characters of physicians and I think you insult a lot of hardworking and caring people with your very wide brushstrokes. I obviously won't convince you and you certainly will never convince me - simple as that.
Well said , thanks for sharing my veiw, I've been under alot of fire by these guys
The problem is. That is not what is happening. The only thing many of you are dedicated to is getting rich. You don't give a D*M about your patients. Except the money you can make off of them. That is why you recklessly poison, injure, and kill so many of your patients with inappropriate, and unnecessary drugs, and medical treatments.
You are Doctors in name, and licenses only. What you really are is a cancer, and plague upon America that must be cutout, and stopped. :-)
It's a misdiagnoses as far as I'm concerned, so no they didn't do the right thing. I don't trust this system at all.It's broken, plain and simple.
Sorry about your mom, I lost mine awhile back. I know what she is going thru, as for the docs looking they did no such thing in my case, hence my disdain, I know what I'm talking about
But gotta now be back later, and thanks, this subject gets me inpassioned.
But just because they couldn't help you, that shouldn't blind you to the reality of where they do help. JMO, but if lawyers are refusing to take your case - that may be a good indication that the doctors did the right thing, that your problem isn't the result of any malpractice, merely something hard to find.
People get paid for their work - that's how it works. Unless you are working for free yourself, you're a hypocrite to condemn companies for making money. And if you are working for free yourself - don't expect me to - I expect to get paid for my hard work.
Just ease up a bit, my man. Get some help, anyway you can.
Peace.
Posted by seandgreen at 02:30 PM : Aug 08, 2007
I know I have been a hostile, but with good reason, I live with pain every day due to these "good" doctors that failed to do anything what so ever.
Didn't mean to direct my disgust at you personally, but took yours personally. As for finding a lawyer to sue, try that when you're in pain, and go thru THAT ringer, espeaclly when some one is not feeling well and you are by yourself. Also I did contact a couple of lawyers, they were of no help either when I told them what I wanted to do, sound fair to you?
The only way to fix this disgrace is universal health care. You have to take the profit motive out of it. Then all these people that became doctors to get rich will high tail it out of medicine.
Posted by john0211 at 02:23 PM : Aug 08, 2007
Why does anyone do anything? Ultimately because of a concern with one's self interest. Some (SOME) doctors chose that profession because it's lucrative, but I think they are a small minority. I think most physicians chose the field because they genuinely like to help people and they feel satisfaction at accomplishing something significant when they successfully treat patients (getting back to the concern with one's self interest thing). You think the guy on the line at Ford is there just because he really wants you to enjoy your new F-150? People do things because they get something out of doing those things. And not all of it is financial as you imply.
My mother was a physician in Canada (sometimes held up as this great model of universal healthcare). She strongly advised me against thinking of a career in medicine because of all the bureaucrats that made a doctor's life he!! there. If you are unhappy with your doctors now when they at least have a financial incentive, how happy will you be with them when they feel like a bunch of government-led lackeys?
And the reason for this is because doctors, and BigPharma keep pushing new less proven drugs on innocent, unsuspecting patients. That their patients either did not need in the first place. Or by switching their patients from older more proven safer, cheaper generic drugs. To newer more risky, more costly brand name drugs.
Why do they do this. GREED!!!!! These doctors primary therapeutic motivation is GREED, and PROFIT!! They are "BigPharma's" wh*r*s. And their patients are their B*TCH*S.
The only way to fix this disgrace is universal health care. You have to take the profit motive out of it. Then all these people that became doctors to get rich will high tail it out of medicine.
Sorry about that, I do have beef with the people you mentioned, and I will continue to speak out against the medical establishment, because it is broken. Plain and simple!
Only the rich get treatment, OBTW I had insrance, key word HAD.
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
Posted by slim1h2o at 01:46 PM : Aug 08, 2007
Actually I've read all of seandgreen's posts and in all of them he is quite reasonable and makes his arguments in a rational and forthright manner. You clearly don't like what he has to say and have a beef against the medical & pharmaceutical fields. It is your posts that are often rude, accusatory and confrontational not his.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 65 Comments