Is there a right to access innovative surgery?

Bioethics

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 342-352

  Meyerson, Denise ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Innovative surgery; Rights

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ETHICS; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; FEMALE; FETAL WELL BEING; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; INDUCED ABORTION; PATIENT RIGHT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMAN; STANDARDS; SURGERY; TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT; TREATMENT REFUSAL; UNITED STATES; WOMEN'S RIGHTS;

ABORTION, INDUCED; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; FEMALE; FETAL VIABILITY; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; PATIENT RIGHTS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMEN; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE; TERMINALLY ILL; THERAPIES, INVESTIGATIONAL; TREATMENT REFUSAL; UNITED STATES; WOMEN'S RIGHTS;

EID: 84929412773     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12111     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. S. Woods & P. McCormack. Disputing the Ethics of Research: The Challenge from Bioethics and Patient Activism to the Interpretation of the Declaration of Helsinki in Clinical Trials. Bioethics 2013; 27: 243-250.
2. N.E. Lombard. Paternalism vs. Autonomy: Steps Toward Resolving the Conflict Over Experimental Drug Access Between the Food and Drug Administration and the Terminally Ill. JHBL 2007; 3: 163-189: 170.
3. L.V. Romano & P.D. Jacobson. Patient Access to Unapproved Therapies. J Health Life Sci Law 2009; 2: 45-72: 49.
4. W.L. Biffl et al. Responsible Development and Application of Surgical Innovations: A Position Statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 206: 1204-1249: 1206.
5. M. Tushnet. Advanced Introduction to Comparative Constitutional Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014. pp. 71-73.
6. M. Baker. Can Bacteria Fight Brain Cancer? Nature News 27 July 2012. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2012.11080.
7. M. Lundstrom. UC Davis Surgeons Resign after Bacteria-in-Brain Dispute. The Sacramento Bee Aug 25, 2013. Available at: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/25/5678851/uc-davis-surgeons-resign-after.html [Accessed 21 Nov 2013].
8. P. McCulloch et al. IDEAL Framework for Surgical Innovation 1:The Idea and Development Stages. BMJ 2013; 346: f3012. DOI:10.1136/bmj.f3012.
9. A. Caplan. Is it Sound Public Policy to Let the Terminally Ill Access Experimental Medical Innovations? Am J Bioeth 2007; 7(6): 1-3: 2.
10. S. Shah & P. Zettler. From a Constitutional Right to a Policy of Exceptions: Abigail Alliance and the Future of Access to Experimental Therapy. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 2010; 10: 135-196: 176-177.
11. Caplan, op. cit. note 9, p. 3.
12. R.A. Epstein. The Erosion of Individual Autonomy in Medical Decisionmaking: Of the FDA and IRBs. Georgetown Law J 2008; 96: 559-582: 569.
13. Abigail I, 484.
14. Abigail I, 495.
15. Romano & Jacobson, op. cit. note 3, p. 61.
16. J. Menikoff. Beyond Abigail Alliance: The Reality behind the Right to Get Experimental Drugs. Kansas Law Review 2008; 56: 1045-1074: 1060-1066.
17. Abigail I, 484.
18. Abigail II, 714-715.
19. Abigail II, 709
20. E. Volokh. Medical Self-Defense, Prohibited Experimental Therapies, and Payment for Organs. Harv Law Rev 2007; 120: 1813-1846: 1815-1816, 1824-1826.
21. Abigail II, 710.
22. T. Murphy. Health and Human Rights. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing; 2013. p. 55.
23. Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (2002) 5 SA 721 (CC), para 46.
24. B.J. Hill. Reproductive Rights as Health Care Rights. Columbia J Gend Law 2009; 18: 501-549: 527-528
25. J.A. Robertson. Controversial Medical Treatment and the Right to Health Care. Hastings Cent Rep 2006; 36: 15-20: 15.
26. Hill, op. cit. note 27, p. 532; Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163-164 (1973).
27. J. Erdman, A. Grenon & L. Harrison-Wilson. Medication Abortion in Canada: A Right-to-Health Perspective. Am J Public Health 2008; 98: 1764-1769: 1767.
28. Hill, op. cit. note 27, pp. 533-534, 543-545.
29. A.L. Allen. Constitutional Law and Privacy. In: D. Patterson, editor. A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 1996. pp. 139-155: 140.
30. P.D. Jacobson & W.E. Parmet. A New Era of Unapproved Drugs: The Case of Abigail Alliance v Von Eschenbach. JAMA 2007; 297: 205-208: 207.
31. L.A. Grossman. The Origins of American Health Libertarianism. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 2013; 13: 76-134: 131-134.
32. R. Dworkin. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth; 1977. p. 191.
33. Castles v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2010] VSC 310.
34. Volokh, op. cit. note 22, makes a similar point about access to experimental drugs (p. 1818).
35. J.S. Barkun et al. Evaluation and Stages of Surgical Innovation. Lancet 2009; 374: 1089-1096: 1091.
36. v Rutherford, 442 U.S 544, 558 (1979).
37. C. Sunstein. Laws of Fear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. pp. 14-15.
38. D. Meyerson. Innovative Surgery and the Precautionary Principle. J Med Philos 2013; 38(6): 605-624.
39. Cf Epstein, op. cit. note 15, who makes a related point about IRBs (p. 581).
40. Abigail II, 728.
41. S. Bender, L. Flicker & R. Rhodes. Access for the Terminally Ill to Experimental Medical Innovations: A Three-Pronged Threat. Am J Bioeth 2007; 7(10): 3-6.
42. E.W. Leonard. The Public's Right to Health: When Patient Rights Threaten the Commons. Washington University Law Review 2009; 86: 1335-1396: 1358.
43. McCulloch, op cit. note 8.
44. Barkun, op.cit. note 38, p. 1089.
45. R.M. Sade. Surgical Innovation: Too Risky to Remain Unregulated? Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 82: 1957-1958: 1957.
46. P.L. Ergina et al. Surgical Innovation and Evaluation 2: Challenges in Evaluating Surgical Innovation. The Lancet 2009; 374: 1097-1104.
47. Barkun, op.cit. note 38, p. 1091.