Individuals who have a terminal diagnosis and no other
options are left with sense of hopelessness. There are no more viable options…
well, that are fully FDA approved. In 2018, the “right-to-try” bill, backed by Donald
Trump, was passed, even though many states had already implemented a similar bill
in years prior. The “right-to-try” allows terminally ill patients to try
experimental drugs that have not fully been approved by the FDA as a last
attempt at a better health outcome. Not just anyone can be a candidate for “right-to-try”
but must meet the guidelines set forth by the bill.
Should terminally ill patients be allowed to use drugs that
have an unknown result? What if the outcome of taking the medicines leads to a
regretful end? Many feel that if we choose to do something to ourselves,
whether it helps or harms, it is our own right. If someone chooses to smoke,
health professionals, friends and family often suggest that they stop because of
the health risk. You might get lung cancer! You might get COPD! Ultimately, the
choice is theirs because smoking is not against the law and they are adults who
choose their own way.
What about assisted euthanasia? The general sentiment of our
class discussions have been supportive of a terminally ill patient choosing to their
death in a pain-free way in comfort and dignity. Does taking an experimental
drug with unknown consequences fall under the same right to our own body and
life as we please? What if it doesn’t lead to a pain-free, dignified outcome?
Maybe, the right to do as we please with our own will always stand true. Maybe,
our function as advocates of ethics, family members and friends is to respond
to the use of experimental drugs with unknown consequences in the same way we
would respond to a family member or friend who partakes in a health hazard like
smoking. We can be the pessimistic voice of reason saying, “Don’t do it. You
don’t know the outcome. You might get COPD!.”
Article on “Right-To-Try”:
Criterion for candidates:
Oddly coincidentally, I just heard a report on the BBC about euthanasia being requested by "healthy" people in the Netherlands-
ReplyDelete"It's not unusual for Dutch patients with dementia to request euthanasia, but in the later stages of the disease they may be incapable of reconfirming their consent - one doctor is currently facing prosecution in such a case. But fear of being refused is pushing some to ask to die earlier than they would have liked.
Annie Zwijnenberg was never in any doubt.
"The neurologist said: 'I'm sorry, but there's no way we can mistake this - its Alzheimer's," says Anneke Soute-Zwijnenberg, describing the moment her mother was first diagnosed.
"And she said: 'OK, then I know what I want.'"
Anneke's brother Frank chips in: "Maybe she hesitated for five seconds, and said: 'Now I know what to do.'"
They both knew she was referring to euthanasia..." (continues)
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-47047579
This brings us back to the conversation about what the patient thinks, the professor. A person understands that their mind is their identity. When the mind is gone, there is no way to understand if they know what is going on. People that are brain dead, coma patients, the catatonic, none of them can communicate their feelings or wishes because of this.
DeleteThe return of the Netherlands into the discussion also worries me. A few years back they were seriously considering granting parents the right to abort children that tested positive for Down Syndrome in the womb. It sounds like their values are very different from those in the United States.
http://righttotry.org/rtt-faq/
ReplyDeleteI wanted to know more about the bill and found this web page that gives a pretty good description. I personally was interested in the what these patients could offer, research wise, for the suppliers of these drugs? Would it help them advance in their research. Is there dangers to using this information gathered from a terminally ill patient in regards to a "healthier" patient?
I would be an advocate experimental, potentially dangerous treatment for those who have no hope left. Yes, it may prove detrimental in some cases, but i believe it is our own right to choose whether or not we want to accept that risk and partake in the treatment. I know if it was myself in that situation, I would definitely be willing to participate.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the right-to-try. The terminally-ill patients, provided they've been properly informed of the potential consequences of the tests and trials, could be saved by some of the new drugs or treatments that haven't made it through the regulations and final test phases. Even if these trials don't produce the life-saving results that were hoped for, perhaps the data collected could be used to further the research and produce a viable product faster.
ReplyDeleteI think the premise of “right to try” should stand throughout medicine, not just terminally ill patients. Humans are going to have motives that will always trump what they feel to be legal; even with the restriction of certain illegal activities, they are still going to happen. People will just get more creative and crafty with their methods of doing so. Humans adapt, that's just what we do. That being said, some regulations for the good of the people are sometimes beneficial for the overall health of the general population. Regulations on smoking, particularly for those who are underage, is obviously a good implementation for the health of our people, and is really an investment on our next generation, those who are growing up into a society where cigarettes are slowly being phased out by e-cigs. Preventing such companies to have child-oriented marketing is simply for the good of the people. Most people will naturally be more biased towards individual cases, however, and terminally ill patients are obviously no exception. In my opinion, they should be the most privileged of the population in this aspect. The author Aldous Huxley, writer of the notorious book “Brave New World”, is known for taking an exorbitant dose of LSD on his deathbed. While this particular example is obviously fairly extreme, if there is a potential for anyone to have a better experience through their death from the use of certain drugs or medications, they should have every right to that opportunity. Someone's final moments shouldn't be taken for granted, and furthermore stifled by medical regulations.
ReplyDeleteDQ:
If right-to-try on a deathbed is wholly allowed, should/will there be regulations on specifically what the patients are allowed to try, and if so, does this defeat the purpose of the concept?
Would outsourced experimentation ever be ethical on the terminally ill, where regardless of consent their life is simply a test subject?
Does the potential of further damage/death truly outweigh the potential of recovery for a patient who is already terminally ill?
I do not think it will ever be ethically accepted to use a patient as a test subject without their consent even if it could overall be beneficial.
ReplyDelete