Thoughts about the Right to Try Act?
This week a new Act was signed into law: the Right to Try.
http://righttotry.org/faq/
It's maddeningly difficult these days to find articles that aren't blatantly politically biased (and I don't know what pro-RTT people are behind the .org website above), so all we can do is read coverage from both sides.
An NPR article about it:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/24/614105544/right-to-try-act-poses-big-challenge-for-fda
An article from a conservative source:
https://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/president-trump-signs-right-to-try-act-into-law/
AND an article where one of the co-sponsors of the RTT bill says it is meant to be a step to weaken the FDA:
https://www.statnews.com/2018/05/31/right-to-try-ron-johnson/
Anyone have thoughts pro/con about the new Act, whether it will help, harm or make little difference to patients in need... or about it potentially weakening the FDA?
Rebecka I think all reasonable people would agree that there is no downside. If you're prognosis is death anyway, why not be allowed to try whatever you want?
It's much better than the Obamacare solution: "we'll gove grandma a pain pill, no point in wasting money if she's going to die anyway". Death panels, anyone?
IMO the FDA is run bass-ackwards: drugs that have no business being used get approved and kill people (Phen-phen comes to mind), while drugs that might save people's lives and the risk is WILLINGLY taken by the patient are blocked from use.
I haven't read the bill but I would say it likely has a provision that the drug companies can not be sued over wrongful death when using an experimental drug, and that's as it should be.
JeffersonRepub *your, not you're, obviously. I just don't want to use "edit" too many times, because that sets off alarms in the forum software LOL
I have a family I know that have fought for this - they are very happy it passed - and as JeffersonRepub stated in his first paragraph - why not have the ability to TRY other things if your prognosis is dying anyway - maybe not help you, but might help others
wbeleno I also think this SHOULD also open up the entire holistic/alternate medicine field.... the FDA/AMA has had a hard-on for anyone practicing "cancer cures" that are not approved by them in this country. they have run many docs out of the country. That is wrong. While I understand the want of a certain level of protection for the public, the public should also be able to make up their own mind if they want to try intravenous megadose Vit C or IV chelated minerals to battle cancer or heart disease.... not the FDA. As so many people on here keep repeating, "my body, my decision", right?
When it comes to the FDA attempting to lock down the entire preventative industry (vitamins, supplements, alternative medicine), they SHOULD be weakened, IMO. If the FDA had their way, even simple vitamins would require a prescription (and they've been trying to get that done for years, but public opinion has "kept the barbarians at the gate", as it were.)
^ Agreed, but I think it's mostly the powerful pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists (vs public opinion) who keep giving more power to the FDA. Sadly...
@Wbeleno - Good point about helping others by agreeing to try the experimental drugs, too.
I suppose this law, like most laws, is subject to abuse, e.g. unapproved drugs finding their way into common usage for which they are not intended. I'm thinking about the opioid disaster as an example.
But I don't know enough about the law to have an opinion.
jd2 I'm not *opposed* to this legislation, per se, but the bill doesn't really *do* anything. All but 10 of the states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-try_law have already passed 'right to try' laws, so it's redundant for the vast majority of the country. Passing popular bills gets great press, so from that perspective it's a solid move by the Trump administration, but it's fluff.
"Right to try" is also a misleading misnomer because no new rights are granted to us through this bill; which is compounded by the fact that federal expanded acces laws https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ExpandedAccessCompassionateUse/default.htm sometimes called 'compassionate use'—already do 90% of what so-called 'right to try' bills market themselves as doing.
We'll see what happens, but I don't think this bill will have any measurable impact on healthcare outcomes.
Skippy "^ Agreed, but I think it's mostly the powerful pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists (vs public opinion) who keep giving more power to the FDA. Sadly..."
Oh, they are in each other's pockets, no doubt. It's ALWAYS about the MONEY.
"I suppose this law, like most laws, is subject to abuse, e.g. unapproved drugs finding their way into common usage for which they are not intended. I'm thinking about the opioid disaster as an example."
Yes, think about that- even WITH FDA regulation, we STILL have an opioid crisis. At least with a policy of "try at your own risk", the lobbying/payback part of this whole scam will be largely eliminated.
You want opioids? I can rX you opioids. BUT: you cannot hold the doctor or the manufacturer or the govt liable for anything that might happen, deal? And if I, as a doctor, decide you have an opioid problem, it is within my rights as a doctor to deny you the rX. But that's not the govt. denying you something based on a sheet of paper: that's a doctor's, that knows you, personal professional opinion of the situation.
And, going further with that point: it's similar to the libertarian policy of legalizing all drugs. You get rid of the street dealers/corrupted (poisoned) product, if you want to kill yourself, kill yourself. You can't (and the govt shouldn't) protect people from their own stupidity, imo. Everyone wants to legalize pot, why not everything else? The "war on drugs" has not only been a gargantuan failure in getting rid of the problem, but corruption ABOUNDS.... CIA flying in heroin for God's sake. What a RACKET and a JOKE.
Agreed JR
1. The laws don't actually give you a right to do anything, doctors can't be forced to prescribe, insurance doesn't have to cover and drug companies don't have to sell the treatments
2. The good component of the idea (last resort therapy) is already allowed under an FDA compassionate use exemption as previously stated. Want to talk about opioids ? Ever see what’s in a hospice comfort box? There’s enough morphine Demarol and dilaudid to keep hacksttstown stoned for ever - these folks already have access and this is not an issue.
3. Phase 1 clinical trials are an extremely low bar for a treatment.
4. As I stated - big pharma dosen’t have to give you the drugs, the companies can now sell you them free from any legal repercussions or requirements to monitor adverse effects - think low risk untapped market.
5. That being said why would pharma companies bother taking any treatment for terminal illness past Phase 1 trials? Phase 2+ are expensive and often rule out actually selling the drug
All this does is reduce risk for pharma companies and doctors - which is a good thing but remember. Doctors don’t have to prescribe it, insurance doesn’t have to pay for it, pharmaceutical compnies don’t have to provide it for free.
Those that would have paid to get access to alternative therapies are still paying now.
Medicare does just that.
Pays for all of the medical conditions that senior citizens have from years of smoking, drinking, and being overweight. Guess that's ok.
Many employees PAY A PREMIUM if they are smokers and have high cholesterol.
Medicare should pay REDUCED BENEFITS to members that have a smoking, drinking , are overweight, or have high cholesterol.
"You can't (and the govt shouldn't) protect people from their own stupidity, imo. "
Dodgebaal "Medicare should pay REDUCED BENEFITS to members that have a smoking, drinking , are overweight, or have high cholesterol. "
Agreed.
"Medicare should pay REDUCED BENEFITS to members that have a smoking, drinking , are overweight, or have high cholesterol. "
Not disagreeing, but noticed you only mentioned legal things. What about reduced benefits for drug addicts of both legal and illegal drugs?
Additionally, high cholesterol can be hereditary. There are plenty of people who have it that are not obese, or constantly scarfing down fatty foods.
Regarding the original topic. I agree that people should be able to CHOOSE to take these drugs.
Calico696 While I don’t disagree with you guys - calico astutely points out how this becomes a slippery slope, ergo, is a patient hypertensive due to their diet and obesity or due to their heredity. That’s never going to fly.
I agree with Calico. Some medical issues are inherited and not related to behaviors. Where do we draw the line for charging for medical costs? Do we demand an individual submit a DNA sample to insurance companies so they can charge a premium based on any genetic abnormalities? Be careful where you tread on that one. I do agree with the Right to Try Act and have previously signed a petition to allow it for terminally ill persons.
plc "While I don’t disagree with you guys - calico astutely points out how this becomes a slippery slope, ergo, is a patient hypertensive due to their diet and obesity or due to their heredity. That’s never going to fly."
That's only the "reduced benefits" opinion, which has nothing to do with the bill that is the topic of the thread. That opinion was introduced by Dodgebaal. So let's not get too far afield on that point, since it's got nothing to do with the legislation.
People should absolutely be allowed to try new medical procedures when they are terminally ill. Unfortunately, only the wealthy actually get to make this choice. Had a friend died recently because she could not afford the latest cancer treatment which could have reversed her cancer. Would have cost over $4,000 a month out of pocket. And she was a fantastic woman.
Older Mom Well... that's where things are going to get complicated. "Right to Try" gives you the right to try non-approved drugs/treatments. It doesn't pay for them. And...
if it's not going to pay for them for EVERYBODY, regardless of what insurance they do or do not have, then it should also not pay for those using Medicare/Medicaid.
However, and I'm just talking out loud here, the drug companies should provide the drugs FREE OF CHARGE, since they are experimental and it would actually HELP them with the R&D (again, provided they are given blanket protection against liability.) Of course that still doesn't cover the cost of the actual hospitalization/tests/doctors that may be required....
Best be sure to let your life insurance company know you are going to do this before you do.
Just to give them a heads up. You don't want your claim denied after you are gone due to this...
Good point, Dodgebaal! Didn't even consider that angle.... it WOULD be just like a friggin' insurance company to "find a way" to screw you, after screwing you for 30+ years.
Commenting is no longer available.