Well, let's see. The hippocratic oath requires doctors to do no harm to their patients. Providing patients access to unapproved, potentially lethal drugs with unstudied side effects violates this oath and I can see why the court ruled as they did.

...What?  I'm confused.  So are experimental drugs currently allowed, but they're trying to say they shouldn't be, or is it the other way around?

No health professional or ethics committee member would ever vote in favour of allowing patients to experiment with developmental drugs that haven't undergone drug trials for approval, regardless whether they are healthy or terminally ill.

Well, let's see. The hippocratic oath requires doctors to do no harm to their patients. Providing patients access to unapproved, potentially lethal drugs with unstudied side effects violates this oath and I can see why the court ruled as they did.

No health professional or ethics committee member would ever vote in favour of allowing patients to experiment with developmental drugs that haven't undergone drug trials for approval, regardless whether they are healthy or terminally ill.

It seems fitting that even on our deathbed, for the average tax-paying citizen choice is still just an illusion.

Go Supreme Court, horrible ruling.

No health professional or ethics committee member would ever vote in favour of allowing patients to experiment with developmental drugs that haven't undergone drug trials for approval, regardless whether they are healthy or terminally ill.

HOWEVER - Doctors and other 'health professionals' prescribe drugs that have been FDA approved, but not for the thing they were prescribed for all the time - Aspirin for Cardiac Health? Beta Blockers for Migraines and other Psychiatric Purposes? Steroids for Cancer? ETC.

The FDA never dreamed of approving any of those drugs for those reasons, yet they're prescribed for them every single day... Without any sort of Drug Testing. Kinda weakens the concept of "FDA Drug Trials and Approval".

This isn't about preventing harm, it's about trying to boost the publics faith in the FDA, instead of showing what a ridiculous, ineffective agency it is, where drug lobbies can convince them to approve a new erection pill or anti depressant in 2 years, while promising treatments for things that actually kill people can take 15 to 20.

Okay, but moving from that. It's like saying they shouldn't do blood work because they have to poke you with a needle and it hurts. Or they shouldn't do skin grafts. Or... et cetera.

I don't understand how allowing someone, who is going to die, the right to choose what drugs they take will have disastrous affects on the world at large.

HOWEVER - Doctors and other 'health professionals' prescribe drugs that have been FDA approved, but not for the thing they were prescribed for all the time - Aspirin for Cardiac Health? Beta Blockers for Migraines and other Psychiatric Purposes? Steroids for Cancer? ETC.

The FDA never dreamed of approving any of those drugs for those reasons, yet they're prescribed for them every single day... Without any sort of Drug Testing. Kinda weakens the concept of "FDA Drug Trials and Approval".

This isn't about preventing harm, it's about trying to boost the publics faith in the FDA, instead of showing what a ridiculous, ineffective agency it is, where drug lobbies can convince them to approve a new erection pill or anti depressant in 2 years, while promising treatments for things that actually kill people can take 15 to 20.

Does anyone understand any argument AGAINST this?

The problem here is that these drugs ARE NOT approved by the FDA, and could have toxic, even lethal, or other unknown effects as they have not gone through proper human trials yet.

I think any terminal patient, whom demonstrates mental competency, should definitely be able to have access to these drugs.

it doesn't matter if they haven't been 'FDA approved for the specific use' only that they have been FDA approved - if its FDA approved it means that it's not going to cause major adverse effects (such as death.) that means you can generally take it for any reason.

Troglitazone is a diabetes drug that was also available abroad at the time the FDA approved it. Post-marketing safety data indicated that the drug had dangerous side-effects (in this case liver failure). The drug was pulled off that market in the UK in 1997, but was not withdrawn by the FDA until 2000, before which time it is claimed that thousands of Americans were injured or killed by the drug.

hahaha you're kidding.

where did you come up with this shit.

do you understand that doctors who prescribe that shit might be doing it because they work and have been tested? like...what are you saying? aspirin does shit to the blood which affects the heart, beta inhibitors are well tested on mental condition, steroids are often used on cancer patients because of muscle atrophy among other things.

jesus christ you even posted it like a big pharma nutjob.

abortion

he is right about prescribing drugs against what they're designed and tested for. drugs can be prescribed off-label, and sometimes it has some pretty terrible consequences. I think one drug was neurontin, used as a painkiller for people who had like shattered feet or something that'd cause them a lot of pain daily. neurontin is normally a drug that is used to stabilize mental health, and that is what it had been FDA tested for. however, many patients noticed that it also acted as a strong painkiller, and after a while some doctors started prescribing it to peope whose pain couldn't be ameliorated by any other drug

as it turns out, when used by people without the mental health issues neurontin was intended for, neurontin can cause deep depression, often leading to suicide. There's a scholarly article out there somewhere about this guy who told his wife to take their daughter out of the house and headed into the basement to kill himself. his daughter realized what was going on and stated crying and screaming, and it was only because he heard this that he couldn't pull the trigger. it was a pretty cool article iirc I don't know if it's still around or on gs but it was an interesting read