Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 14 (3):385-400 (2017)

Abstract
This article considers the issue of expanded access to innovative treatments in the context of recent legislative initiatives in the United Kingdom and the United States. In the United Kingdom, the supporters of legislative change argued that the common law principles governing medical negligence are a barrier to innovation. In an attempt to remove this perceived impediment, two bills proposed that innovating doctors sued for negligence should be able to rely in their defence on the fact that their decision to innovate was “responsible.” A decision to innovate would be regarded as responsible if it followed a specified process. Although these changes to the law of medical negligence were not passed, this article argues that the idea of a process-based approach was sound. In the United States, a number of states have passed “Right to Try” laws that permit doctors to prescribe and companies to provide investigational products without the need for FDA approval. These laws do not purport to and nor are they able to alter the obligations of individuals and companies under federal law. They are consequently unlikely to achieve their stated aim of expanding access to investigational products. This article argues that they nevertheless have a cogent rationale in so far as they highlight the need for rights-based reform to federal regulations governing access.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11673-017-9791-z
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: 63,323
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Innovative Surgery and the Precautionary Principle.Denise Meyerson - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (6):jht047.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Right to Try: In Response.Denise Meyerson - 2019 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 16 (3):467-468.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Critique of Chester V Afshar.T. Clark & D. Nolan - 2014 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 34 (4):659-692.
Protecting Reputation: Defamation and Negligence.Eric Descheemaeker - 2009 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29 (4):603-641.
Teaching Medical Law in Medical Education.Rebecca S. Y. Wong & Usharani Balasingam - 2013 - Journal of Academic Ethics 11 (2):121-138.
Medical Ethics: A Case Based Approach.R. Ashcroft - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (7):e10-e10.
Crimes of Negligence: Attempting and Succeeding. [REVIEW]Alfred R. Mele - 2012 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (3):387-398.
A Causal Theory of Negligence.Randall R. Curren - 1992 - Social Philosophy Today 7:111-124.
Responsibility and the Negligence Standard.Joseph Raz - 2010 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-06-21

Total views
18 ( #586,282 of 2,448,717 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #301,447 of 2,448,717 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes