3 ms·

Yeah there's a lot of talk about "right to try" laws doing what you have described. Personally? It had better be an airtight law accounting for the edge cases

Yeah there's a lot of talk about "right to try" laws doing what you have described. Personally? It had better be an airtight law accounting for the edge cases that could allow certain populations to be taken advantage of. For example, if anyone with a terminal illness can try an experimental drug, could a pharmaceutical company charge for said treatment? Or use the data from trying this treatment on the patient to further their own research? I guess it just doesn't sit well with me since researchers in the US have had a history of taking advantage of certain populations in furthering progress (Tuskeegee, prison populations, mental institutions).

Udik 9y ago
> Or use the data from trying this treatment on the patient to further their own research? What would be the problem with it, provided that the treatment is given for free and the patient has no other options?
- epmaybe 9y ago
  My gut tells me that if the treatment is given for free (my original comment mentioned I was concerned if the company was charging for said treatments) then there's far less of a problem. However, there's still this incentive for a company to take advantage of this situation. Giving the treatment for free could technically be cheaper than providing the drug in a trial while also paying a participant.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    So? Earlier human trials means faster to market drugs means competitive advantage.
    - epmaybe 9y ago
      Without being as vague, my main concern is that a pharmaceutical company could find value in business practices that put patients, even those with terminal illnesses, at an unacceptable risk of harm that the patient may not be cognizant of. If the company begins a campaign of fraudulent kickbacks to healthcare professionals we end up with a corrupt system in which we take advantage of patients and their families. Medicine and medical research goes slowly and cautiously because we wish to protect people. To end this comment, I wish to go back to my statement that if this country goes in the direction of right to try, I sincerely hope lawmakers ensure protection of the patients that could benefit.
    - epmaybe 9y ago
      I wanted to update you with some new information I remembered. There is already legislation that allows for this, called the Compassionate Use Act. The difference being that the FDA is required to be involved, giving final say on if the doctor and pharmaceutical company can administer the mtreatment to the patient.

Udik 9y ago

> Or use the data from trying this treatment on the patient to further their own research? What would be the problem with it, provided that the treatment is given for free and the patient has no other options?

epmaybe 9y ago
My gut tells me that if the treatment is given for free (my original comment mentioned I was concerned if the company was charging for said treatments) then there's far less of a problem. However, there's still this incentive for a company to take advantage of this situation. Giving the treatment for free could technically be cheaper than providing the drug in a trial while also paying a participant.
- matte_black 9y ago
  So? Earlier human trials means faster to market drugs means competitive advantage.
  - epmaybe 9y ago
    Without being as vague, my main concern is that a pharmaceutical company could find value in business practices that put patients, even those with terminal illnesses, at an unacceptable risk of harm that the patient may not be cognizant of. If the company begins a campaign of fraudulent kickbacks to healthcare professionals we end up with a corrupt system in which we take advantage of patients and their families. Medicine and medical research goes slowly and cautiously because we wish to protect people. To end this comment, I wish to go back to my statement that if this country goes in the direction of right to try, I sincerely hope lawmakers ensure protection of the patients that could benefit.
  - epmaybe 9y ago
    I wanted to update you with some new information I remembered. There is already legislation that allows for this, called the Compassionate Use Act. The difference being that the FDA is required to be involved, giving final say on if the doctor and pharmaceutical company can administer the mtreatment to the patient.