Terminal illness and access to phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: Reviewing the ethical arguments
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Background: The advent of AIDS brought about a group of patients unwilling to accept crucial aspects of the methodological standards for clinical research investigating Phase 1 drugs, surgeries or devices. Their arguments against placebo controls in trials, which depended-at the time-on the terminal status of patient volunteers led to a renewed discussion of the ethics of denying patients with catastrophic illnesses access to last-chance experimental drugs, surgeries or devices. Sources of data: Existing ethics and health policy literature on the topic of access to experimental drugs. Areas of agreement: The positions of those arguing for or against free access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients are irreconcilable. Areas of controversy: At stake are questions about the kinds of personal sacrifices society can reasonably expect patients in clinical trials to make to ensure statistically predictive results. These would benefit by necessity a much larger number of current and future patients-the conflict is about individual versus public interests. It is also about the question of whether or not the state can legitimately prevent patients with terminal illnesses from unfettered access to experimental drugs, surgeries or devices in order to motivate them to participate in clinical trials. We review the ethical arguments for and against the provision of access to Phase 1 agents for terminally ill patients. Growing points: Finding a compromise between providing free or no access to Phase 1 drugs for terminally ill patients. Areas timely for developing research: We ought to investigate means to increase access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients without sacrificing necessary clinical trials' sounds scientific methods.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
P. Allmark (2006). Should Desperate Volunteers Be Included in Randomised Controlled Trials? Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (9):548-553.
Marek Czarkowski (2006). The Protection of Patients' Rights in Clinical Trials. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):131-138.
Frederic Gilbert (2011). Working While Under the Influence of Performance-Enhancing Drugs: Is One “More Responsible”? American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2 (3):57-59.
Thomas C. Jones (2005). A Call to Restructure the Drug Development Process: Government Over-Regulation and Non-Innovative Late Stage (Phase III) Clinical Trials Are Major Obstacles to Advances in Health Care. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (4):575-587.
Danielle Laudy (2009). End of Life Pediatric Research: What About the Ethics? [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):87-91.
M. Chahal (2010). Off-Trial Access to Experimental Cancer Agents for the Terminally Ill: Balancing the Needs of Individuals and Society. Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (6):367-370.
Eve Garrard & Anthony Wrigley (2009). Hope and Terminal Illness: False Hope Versus Absolute Hope. Clinical Ethics 4 (1):38-43.
N. Waller Bruce (1995). Individual Autonomy and the Double-Blind Controlled Experiment: The Case of Desperate Volunteers. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1).
Udo Schüklenk & Carlton Hogan (1996). Patient Access to Experimental Drugs and AIDS Clinical Trial Designs: Ethical Issues. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 5 (03):400-.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #118,509 of 1,012,852 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,295 of 1,012,852 )
How can I increase my downloads?