"The bill will give terminally ill patients the right to seek drug treatments that remain in clinical trials and "have passed Phase 1 of the Food and Drug Administration's approval process" but...
"The bill will give terminally ill patients the right to seek drug treatments that remain in clinical trials and "have passed Phase 1 of the Food and Drug Administration's approval process" but have not been fully approved by the FDA."
I think that's not too bad of an idea, honestly. If ones terminally ill and there's a treatment that seems promising but isn't approved, and they decide for themselves, I do not see why we should...
I think that's not too bad of an idea, honestly. If ones terminally ill and there's a treatment that seems promising but isn't approved, and they decide for themselves, I do not see why we should stop them from doing so.
Obviously, there will be a lot of risks, and I'm sure people will point out some faults in this bill, but I think giving the people the choice is a great start. It's why I'm also for people choosing to end their life in safe, responsible manner. (I.E. Doctor assisted suicide).
Who am I to tell someone who is dealing with a terminal illness if they should have no recourse other than to suffer?
On the one hand, I like that there's an option to fight until the end. On the other, this could potentially open one giant can of unethical worms through coercing terminally ill patients in...
On the one hand, I like that there's an option to fight until the end. On the other, this could potentially open one giant can of unethical worms through coercing terminally ill patients in exchange for financial incentives.
That was my first thought. How many pharmaceutical corps will push drugs that haven't been fully tested in order to maximize the $$$? I agree with the idea in theory (personal rights) but people...
That was my first thought. How many pharmaceutical corps will push drugs that haven't been fully tested in order to maximize the $$$? I agree with the idea in theory (personal rights) but people in vulnerable positions (e.g. dying) are easier to prey on, so. Yeah.
I was actually trying to think of the other side to this - so one fear is that terminally ill patients might be targeted for experimental treatments that these patients might have been better off...
I was actually trying to think of the other side to this - so one fear is that terminally ill patients might be targeted for experimental treatments that these patients might have been better off not risking? It's rough - I feel the core concept here - letting people choose what treatment they want, even if the treatment isn't safe - is moving in the right direction in terms of freedom and personal autonomy. I wonder if there's a way to regulate how these terminally ill patients can be contacted regarding experimental treatments that might mitigate this problem. But than I also wonder if it's even relevantly possible to take advantage of a terminally ill patient with experimental treatment - obviously they'll only be resorting to that attempted manipulation as a last resort in either case, where they almost by definition have nothing to lose.
This is the tricky bit. Yes, providing that personal autonomy would be fantastic. That's the part I support. The problem is when there is a financial incentive to pressure, coerce, or even force...
. . .so one fear is that terminally ill patients might be targeted for experimental treatments that these patients might have been better off not risking? . . .letting people choose what treatment they want, even if the treatment isn't safe - is moving in the right direction in terms of freedom and personal autonomy.
This is the tricky bit. Yes, providing that personal autonomy would be fantastic. That's the part I support. The problem is when there is a financial incentive to pressure, coerce, or even force patients to accept an experimental treatment that they ordinarily wouldn't. Additionally, there's the problem of whether the patient's family pressures the patient against their own wishes. That takes autonomy away from vulnerable individuals. It's a double-edged sword.
But than I also wonder if it's even relevantly possible to take advantage of a terminally ill patient with experimental treatment. . .
Absolutely. History is filled with examples of unethical behavior in the medical field. Any number of tactics could be employed, including (but not limited to) emotional or financial manipulation or even physical threats.
. . .obviously they'll only be resorting to that attempted manipulation as a last resort in either case, where they almost by definition have nothing to lose.
Never underestimate the power of a financial incentive. People do shady shit all the time for a few extra bucks. And if someone could get an extra financial kickback for "encouraging" a patient to try a new experimental treatment that "could potentially save their life", then the combination of financial incentive and desire to help could cause a medical care provider to engage in unethical behavior without seeing anything wrong with it.
This seems similar to the legislation that Tessa Jowell was advocating for before her death. It seems like a very reasonable act in principle, though I can't speak for the quality of the...
This seems similar to the legislation that Tessa Jowell was advocating for before her death. It seems like a very reasonable act in principle, though I can't speak for the quality of the implementation.
"The bill will give terminally ill patients the right to seek drug treatments that remain in clinical trials and "have passed Phase 1 of the Food and Drug Administration's approval process" but have not been fully approved by the FDA."
I think that's not too bad of an idea, honestly. If ones terminally ill and there's a treatment that seems promising but isn't approved, and they decide for themselves, I do not see why we should stop them from doing so.
Obviously, there will be a lot of risks, and I'm sure people will point out some faults in this bill, but I think giving the people the choice is a great start. It's why I'm also for people choosing to end their life in safe, responsible manner. (I.E. Doctor assisted suicide).
Who am I to tell someone who is dealing with a terminal illness if they should have no recourse other than to suffer?
On the one hand, I like that there's an option to fight until the end. On the other, this could potentially open one giant can of unethical worms through coercing terminally ill patients in exchange for financial incentives.
That was my first thought. How many pharmaceutical corps will push drugs that haven't been fully tested in order to maximize the $$$? I agree with the idea in theory (personal rights) but people in vulnerable positions (e.g. dying) are easier to prey on, so. Yeah.
I was actually trying to think of the other side to this - so one fear is that terminally ill patients might be targeted for experimental treatments that these patients might have been better off not risking? It's rough - I feel the core concept here - letting people choose what treatment they want, even if the treatment isn't safe - is moving in the right direction in terms of freedom and personal autonomy. I wonder if there's a way to regulate how these terminally ill patients can be contacted regarding experimental treatments that might mitigate this problem. But than I also wonder if it's even relevantly possible to take advantage of a terminally ill patient with experimental treatment - obviously they'll only be resorting to that attempted manipulation as a last resort in either case, where they almost by definition have nothing to lose.
This is the tricky bit. Yes, providing that personal autonomy would be fantastic. That's the part I support. The problem is when there is a financial incentive to pressure, coerce, or even force patients to accept an experimental treatment that they ordinarily wouldn't. Additionally, there's the problem of whether the patient's family pressures the patient against their own wishes. That takes autonomy away from vulnerable individuals. It's a double-edged sword.
Absolutely. History is filled with examples of unethical behavior in the medical field. Any number of tactics could be employed, including (but not limited to) emotional or financial manipulation or even physical threats.
Never underestimate the power of a financial incentive. People do shady shit all the time for a few extra bucks. And if someone could get an extra financial kickback for "encouraging" a patient to try a new experimental treatment that "could potentially save their life", then the combination of financial incentive and desire to help could cause a medical care provider to engage in unethical behavior without seeing anything wrong with it.
This seems similar to the legislation that Tessa Jowell was advocating for before her death. It seems like a very reasonable act in principle, though I can't speak for the quality of the implementation.