Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (11):761-767 (2018)

Authors
Arthur L. Caplan
New York University
Abstract
Patients have received experimental pharmaceuticals outside of clinical trials for decades. There are no industry-wide best practices, and many companies that have granted compassionate use, or ‘preapproval’, access to their investigational products have done so without fanfare and without divulging the process or grounds on which decisions were made. The number of compassionate use requests has increased over time. Driving the demand are new treatments for serious unmet medical needs; patient advocacy groups pressing for access to emerging treatments; internet platforms enabling broad awareness of compelling cases or novel drugs and a lack of trust among some that the pharmaceutical industry and/or the FDA have patients’ best interests in mind. High-profile cases in the media have highlighted the gap between patient expectations for compassionate use and company utilisation of fair processes to adjudicate requests. With many pharmaceutical manufacturers, patient groups, healthcare providers and policy analysts unhappy with the inequities of the status quo, fairer and more ethical management of compassionate use requests was needed. This paper reports on a novel collaboration between a pharmaceutical company and an academic medical ethics department that led to the formation of the Compassionate Use Advisory Committee. Comprising medical experts, bioethicists and patient representatives, CompAC established an ethical framework for the allocation of a scarce investigational oncology agent to single patients requesting non-trial access. This is the first account of how the committee was formed and how it built an ethical framework and put it into practice.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2016-103917
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,634
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Different Ways to Argue About Medical Ethics.John R. McMillan - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (11):727-728.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

An Integrated Approach to Resource Allocation.Louise M. Terry - 2004 - Health Care Analysis 12 (2):171-180.
On the Impartiality of Early British Clinical Trials.David Teira - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3):412-418.
Medical Decision Making in Scarcity Situations.J. J. M. van Delden - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (2):207-211.
The Protection of Patients' Rights in Clinical Trials.Marek Czarkowski - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):131-138.
Uncertainty and the Ethics of Clinical Trials.Sven Ove Hansson - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (2):149-167.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-07-08

Total views
19 ( #517,028 of 2,348,975 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #512,628 of 2,348,975 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes