Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 463–466 | Cite as

A Response to Meyerson’s Defence of the American Right to Try

Experimenting with hope
  • Oliver KimEmail author
Critical Response

Abstract

This comment responds to a defence of the right to try, a law adopted by the United States and many state governments that seeks to expand access to experimental drugs. In defending the right to try, Meyerson argues that it is part of a broader rights-based approach for patient access to innovation. But a drug that is still part of the experimental process may not be an innovation—indeed, it may be a failure and even harmful or dangerous. Further, this approach does not weigh other rights that may be at stake such as the property rights of the drug maker or the rights of future patients seeking access to cures. Lastly, research has found that many patients often fail to receive recommended treatments and preventive care from their providers, let alone experimental or innovative therapies. These policy problems suggest that there is a need for patients to have a greater involvement and role in their care and in how research funding is made, but the right to try fails to address these problems.

Keywords

Bioethics Right to try End-of-life issues Prescription drugs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Tina Cockburn, Kim Love, Lois Magner, and Kim Trzeciak for their assistance and recommendations in developing this commentary.

References

  1. Berkun, S. 2013. The best definition of innovation. http://scottberkun.com/2013/the-best-definition-of-innovation. Accessed November 13, 2018.
  2. Darrow, J., A. Sarpatwari, J. Avorn, and A. Kesselheim. 2015. Practical, legal, and ethical issues in expanded access to investigational drugs. The New England Journal of Medicine 372(3): 279-286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dresser, R. 2015. The “right to try” investigational drugs: Science and stories in the access debate. Texas Law Review 93: 1631-1657.Google Scholar
  4. Farber, D., P. Pinto, A. Caplan, and A. Bateman-House. 2015. How state right-to-try laws create false expectations. Health Affairs, May 22. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20150522.047884/full. Accessed July 3, 2017.
  5. Kim, O. 2018. Trying and dying: Are some wishes at the end of life better than others? Dalhousie Law Journal 41(1): 93-119.Google Scholar
  6. McGlynn, E. 2008. The case for keeping quality on the health reform agenda. Testimony presented before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, June 3, in Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Merriam Webster Dictionary. 2019a. Experiment. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment. Accessed January 30, 2019.
  8. Merriam Webster Dictionary. 2019b. Innovation. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation. Accessed January 30, 2019.
  9. Meyerson, D. 2017. Medical negligence determinations, the “right to try,” and expanded access to innovative treatments. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 14: 385-400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morris, Z., S. Wooding, and J. Grant. 2011. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 104(12): 510-520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Silverman, E. 2016. 21st Century Cures would require pharma to post polices on experimental drugs. https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/11/28/21st-century-experimental-drugs. Accessed July 3, 2017.
  12. Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 [US]. Public Law 115-176.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Pittsburgh School of LawWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations