Access for the terminally ill to experimental medical innovations: A three-pronged threat

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 7, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 3-6

  Bender, Shira ^a   Flicker, Lauren ^a   Rhodes, Rosamond ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG;

ARTICLE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG SCREENING; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHICAL THEORY; ETHICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MASS MEDIUM; PATIENT RIGHT; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; POLITICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STANDARD; TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; DRUG EVALUATION; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; ETHICAL THEORY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; LOBBYING; MARKETING OF HEALTH SERVICES; MASS MEDIA; PATIENT RIGHTS; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; TERMINALLY ILL; THERAPIES, INVESTIGATIONAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 35148818621     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265160701672255     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Von Eschenbach, 445 F3d 470 (DC Cir. 2006).
2. Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Von Eschenbach, 445 F3d 470 at 490 (DC Cir 2006) (Griffith, J. dissenting) (quoting Brief for Respondent-Appellant, Abigail Alliance, 445 F.3d 470 (2007 WL 415084)).
3. Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Von Eschenbach, No. 04-5350, 2007 WL 2238914 (DC Cir. Aug. 7, 2007).
4. Appelbaum, P. S., L. H. Roth, C. W. Lidz, P. Benson, and W. Winslade. 1987. False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Report 17: 20-24.
5. Caplan, A. 2007. Is it sound public policy to let the terminally ill access experimental medical innovations? American Journal of Bioethics 7(6): 1-3.
6. Deyo, R. A. 2005. Hope or hype: The obsession with medical advances and the high cost of false promises. Saranac Lake, NY: AMACOM.
7. Food and Drug Administration. 1998. Center for drug evaluation and research handbook. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/handbook (accessed on July 10, 2007).
8. Harvey, E. D. 2005. Early/expanded access provisions for unapproved/investigational medical devices. Food and Drug Law Institute. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/present/fdli-apr05-harvey/index_files/ textonly/index.html (accessed July 10, 2007).
9. Mello, M. M., and T. A. Brennan. 2001. The controversy over high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant for breast cancer. Health Affairs 20: 101-117.
10. Meron, D. 2007. Brief for Respondent-Appellant at 58, Abigail Alliance, 445 F.3d 470 (2007 WL 415084).
11. Mill, J. S. 1869 [2007]. On liberty. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
12. Moseley, J. B., K. O'Malley, N. J. Petersen, et al. 2002. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. New England Journal of Medicine 347(2): 81-88.
13. Nickerson, R. S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2(2): 175-220.
14. United States Congress 1938. Federal food drug and cosmetic act. United States Code. Title 21, § 301.
15. United States Congress. 2005. Access, compassion, care, and ethics for seriously ill patients act of 2005. (ACCESS Act). 109th Cong., S. 1956, § 2.