Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

The 21st Century Cures Act, as seen by a medical ethicist

Paul C. McLean
Meds
January 8, 2017
141 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share

The blood thinner heparin is not a 21st-century cure. It was discovered 100 years ago by a scientist looking for something else entirely, and is one of the oldest drugs still in regular use.

After my daughter was diagnosed with a potentially fatal blood disorder, heparin played a key daily role in her treatment. We’d wash our hands meticulously, lay out gloves and antiseptic wipes, saline flushes for the access lines to her fragile immune system, and finally the sealed heparin syringe.

For many months, we went through boxes of heparin and never questioned its safety. Never had reason to.

But in 2008, after my daughter was officially declared cured and we’d used heparin for the last time, contamination in the supply from China killed 19 Americans and harmed many others. Writing that sentence still gives me the chills. My daughter survived thanks to medicine, but it also could have killed her.

So you can understand why, as the 21st Century Cures Act sailed to passage.

That heparin contamination was in part due to lax oversight of the drug supply chain. It reminds me why I do not want to see the work of the Food and Drug Administration compromised by overeager drug companies taking advantage of the hopes of desperate patients, and taking shortcuts on safety.

The “giant piñata” of a bill, as science blogger Derek Lowe aptly described the 21st Century Cures Act, is destined to explode in unexpected ways.

I can’t predict whether it will prove to be mainly a bounty of new treatments, a bouquet of hope for patients, or a lollipop for Martin Shkreli, the hated face of pharma profiteering.

As a medical ethicist, I’m most concerned about this potential fallout: that the FDA will be seen as a barrier rather than a protector, and become too quick with the rubber stamp; and that the DNA of the National Institutes of Health will be edited into a form that diminishes basic science.

And as a father, a husband, and a patient myself, I’m most concerned that one day, I’ll ask my doctor, “Is this new drug safe? Is it going to work?” And he’ll shrug.

The act undoubtedly will help with the addiction crisis, improve treatment of the mentally ill, and perhaps move research toward a cure for Alzheimer’s and other brain diseases. That is why it has been championed by the American Psychological Association, the American Society for Human Genetics and the American Society for Clinical Oncology among many others, not to mention President Obama.

But in highlighting the act’s benefits, many of the bill’s backers downplayed its potential harms. Particularly when it comes to the FDA, and the bill’s acceleration of the approval process for new drugs and medical devices.

Is the FDA, in fact, a barrier or a protector? I hadn’t thought to frame the question quite that way until reading about another recent news event. At Standing Rock, in the days before the Dakota Access oil pipeline’s setback, some of people gathered there expressed consternation over the media’s frequent description of Native Americans and their supporters as “protesters.” You see, they perceive themselves as “water protectors.”

The 21st Century Cures Act sees the FDA as a barrier to drug makers, blocking the companies’ pipeline to patients. What I see is that the agency has long served as a protector — and one thing it has protected is trust in the doctor-patient relationship.

Drugs don’t get approved until proven safe and effective — so doctors know they’re unlikely to harm a patient and likely to do some good. Doctors need that confidence in the FDA, but it could be put at serious risk by the act’s acceleration of the drug-approval process.

Fueling the bill’s attack on the FDA was an unfounded suspicion that the agency keeps readily available treatments and cures from desperate patients. On the contrary, the FDA has responded meaningfully to the urgency of patients and advocacy groups by creating more avenues for expanded access to experimental treatments.

Still, the 21st Century Cures Act portrays the FDA as too tight, too restrictive. Some backers of the bill portrayed safe and effective treatments as the enemies of compassion. But I worry that choosing that type of compassion over caution can cause harm, both immediate and long-term — to patients and to science alike.

My own bias in assessing the bill can be traced to a cure whose credit belongs largely to the previous century. My daughter had severe aplastic anemia, a failure of the bone marrow that leaves a person defenseless against disease.

There was really nothing doctors could do about it until the second half of the 20th century, when scientists — painfully, methodically — gained understanding of the need for compatible tissues, how to keep certain T cells at bay with aggressive treatment, how to get chemo and radiation doses right, and how to make the donor blood supply safe.

Cyclosporine, which suppresses the immune system, changed everything. In 1983, more than a decade after its discovery in Norwegian soil fungus, it was determined to be safe and effective — by the FDA.

Now, aplastic anemia is often curable, as it was for my daughter. Cyclosporine helped her body make peace with her donor’s stem cells. She benefited not only from emergent knowledge of her rare disease but from myriad clinical trials into other diseases that increased knowledge relevant to her illness.

So when I hear about the billions that the 21st Century Cures Act invests in the Cancer Moonshot, I know cancer patients won’t be the only beneficiaries. A broader common good will be served, even as individual patients are given new hope and sometimes cured.

But my daughter’s cure was grounded in real scientific knowledge, which randomized clinical trials are uniquely able to provide. And though the 21st Century Cares Act includes $4.8 billion for new research at the NIH, that’s press-release money. The real funding will be determined by Congress over the next decade.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who opposed the bill, warned of its potential systemic harms: “Medical breakthroughs come from increasing investments in basic research,” she said. “Right now, Congress is choking off investments in the NIH.”

My annual physical is in a week or so. In the past, discussing prescription drugs with my doctor, I’ve never felt the need to ask, “Is this drug safe?” I may need to start. I hope he never answers with a shrug.

Paul C. McLean is an ethics associate, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA.  This article originally appeared in WBUR’s CommonHealth.

Image credit: Shutterstock.com

Prev

Anti-vaccine Cleveland Clinic doctor just made our jobs so much harder

January 7, 2017 Kevin 15
…
Next

A hospital gown to remember

January 8, 2017 Kevin 0
…

Tagged as: Medications

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Anti-vaccine Cleveland Clinic doctor just made our jobs so much harder
Next Post >
A hospital gown to remember

Related Posts

  • Digital advances in the medical aid in dying movement

    Jennifer Lynn
  • How the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for social media training in medical education 

    Oscar Chen, Sera Choi, and Clara Seong
  • End medical school grades

    Adam Lieber
  • What inspires this medical student

    Jamie Katuna
  • Many questions remain about medical marijuana

    Steven Reznick, MD
  • Medical ethics and medical school: a student’s perspective

    Jacob Riegler

More in Meds

  • Levamisole is good for your dog, but bad for your cocaine

    Robert Killeen, MD
  • 13.1 million missing Americans since 1980. Where’s the outrage?

    Steve Burgess, MD
  • Ketamine for mental health conditions: What every primary care physician needs to know

    Carlene MacMillan, MD & L. Alison McInnes, MD
  • Learn to be a Narcan hero: a comic tutorial

    Emily Watters, MD
  • The preference for insurance coverage of opioids over non-pharmaceutical options explained

    Amy Baxter, MD
  • A comic reveals the terrifying truth about fentanyl

    Emily Watters, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Reigniting after burnout: 3 physician stories

      Kim Downey, PT | Physician
    • I’m tired of being a distracted doctor

      Shiv Rao, MD | Tech
    • Inside the grueling life of a surgery intern

      Randall S. Fong, MD | Physician
    • The erosion of patient care

      Laura de la Torre, MD | Physician
    • Transforming primary care for physician well-being [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Family support is pivotal in the treatment of schizophrenia

      Frank Chen, MD | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • Medical gaslighting: a growing challenge in today’s medical landscape

      Tami Burdick | Conditions
    • I want to be a doctor who can provide care for women: What states must I rule out for my medical education?

      Nandini Erodula | Education
    • Balancing opioid medication in chronic pain

      L. Joseph Parker, MD | Conditions
    • Reigniting after burnout: 3 physician stories

      Kim Downey, PT | Physician
    • I’m a doctor, and I almost died during childbirth

      Bayo Curry-Winchell, MD | Physician
    • Mourning the silent epidemic: the physician suicide crisis and suggestions for change

      Amna Shabbir, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • Transforming primary care for physician well-being [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • COVID-19 unleashed an ongoing crisis of delirium in hospitals

      Christina Reppas-Rindlisbacher, MD, Nathan Stall, MD, and Paula Rochon, MD | Conditions
    • Doctors and disability insurance: Protecting your income

      Amarish Dave, DO | Finance
    • Emergency care nightmare: the urgent need for experienced nurses

      Rachel Basham, RN, CCRN | Conditions
    • Physicians have no autonomy. Here’s how to change that.

      Diane W. Shannon, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Understanding intersex health care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 2 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

CME Spotlights

From MedPage Today

Latest News

  • Report: Persistence of Gender Inequalities in Cancer Care, and a Call to Action
  • Cancer Risk in NAFLD Higher With Early Disease Onset
  • FDA Displeased With Companies Purposely Adding Sesame to More Foods
  • COVID Vax Appointment Cancelled? New Shot Rollout Faces Challenges
  • Medical Residents Receive 100+ Job Offer Contacts, Survey Shows

Meeting Coverage

  • New Schizophrenia Treatments Are Coming: Don't Panic
  • Loneliness Needs to Be Treated Like Any Other Health Condition, Researcher Suggests
  • Stopping Medical Misinformation Requires Early Detection
  • AI Has an Image Problem in Healthcare, Expert Says
  • Want Better Health Outcomes? Check Out What Other Countries Do
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Reigniting after burnout: 3 physician stories

      Kim Downey, PT | Physician
    • I’m tired of being a distracted doctor

      Shiv Rao, MD | Tech
    • Inside the grueling life of a surgery intern

      Randall S. Fong, MD | Physician
    • The erosion of patient care

      Laura de la Torre, MD | Physician
    • Transforming primary care for physician well-being [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Family support is pivotal in the treatment of schizophrenia

      Frank Chen, MD | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • Medical gaslighting: a growing challenge in today’s medical landscape

      Tami Burdick | Conditions
    • I want to be a doctor who can provide care for women: What states must I rule out for my medical education?

      Nandini Erodula | Education
    • Balancing opioid medication in chronic pain

      L. Joseph Parker, MD | Conditions
    • Reigniting after burnout: 3 physician stories

      Kim Downey, PT | Physician
    • I’m a doctor, and I almost died during childbirth

      Bayo Curry-Winchell, MD | Physician
    • Mourning the silent epidemic: the physician suicide crisis and suggestions for change

      Amna Shabbir, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • Transforming primary care for physician well-being [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • COVID-19 unleashed an ongoing crisis of delirium in hospitals

      Christina Reppas-Rindlisbacher, MD, Nathan Stall, MD, and Paula Rochon, MD | Conditions
    • Doctors and disability insurance: Protecting your income

      Amarish Dave, DO | Finance
    • Emergency care nightmare: the urgent need for experienced nurses

      Rachel Basham, RN, CCRN | Conditions
    • Physicians have no autonomy. Here’s how to change that.

      Diane W. Shannon, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Understanding intersex health care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

The 21st Century Cures Act, as seen by a medical ethicist
2 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...