Orac thoughtfully looks at the controversy surrounding this issue:
Don’t even get me started on the liability issues involved. It’s impossible to give truly informed consent regarding a drug that hasn’t made it through at least Phase II testing. Given the litigious nature of the U.S., it’s highly unlikely that a blanket immunization from liability to physicians prescribing such drugs or drug companies making them would pass muster. And the flip side of the coin, of course, is that it is possible to imagine physicians being held liable for not pursuing experimental therapies.
Related posts:
- Pharmacists dispensing drugs without a prescription
- Pharmacogenomics: "Physicians are the sitting ducks in this new class of litigation"
- Medicare and denying access to drugs
- Denying experimental drugs to terminal patients: "Moronic cruelty"
- Having a stroke, and taking clot-busting drugs at home
- How should the FDA regulate the social media advertising of drugs?
- Are generic drugs truly equivalent to brand name medications?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
If there’s no “right” to healthcare than how can there be a right to a certain drug?
Have physicians read the Constitution? Why do they keep wondering if everything is a “constitutional right”?
While there is no constitutional right to an experiemental drug or any other drug, the constitutional authority of the federal government to regulate drug availability is not beyond question. The courts of course have supported current law on the matter but the court has often reversed itself and is not infallible. A reasonable reading of the constitution lends itself to the conclusion that drug availability is not a power given to the federal government and must be done at the state level.
Comments on this entry are closed.