by Kathy Chow
Before any drug
reaches the sales counter, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) must approve
it via a three-phase process to ensure that it is safe for consumers. This is a
long and arduous process that usually takes several years.
The question of whether we should allow terminally ill
patients to gain access to non-FDA-approved drugs is one that has surfaced
repeatedly in recent years. In 2008, the Supreme Court justices dismissed Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach. As a
result, a divided federal appeals court made the decision instead, ruling that
terminally ill patients do not have
the right to use experimental medications. More recently, during the 112th
Congress (2011-2013), Senator Ron Paul attempted to introduce the Compassionate
Freedom of Choice Act, which would prevent the FDA from restricting access to
experimental medication for terminally ill patients. However, the bill died in
committee.
Despite the continuous rejection from various branches of
the United States government of this policy, several compelling arguments may
be made in its favor.
First, there is the issue of bodily autonomy. The ability to
make independent choices gives human life meaning. If you woke up one day and
somehow realized that your brain is hooked up to a machine that generates your
perceived “reality”, your life would have a lot less meaning. Why? Because the
decisions that you think you made were not actually made by you, but were
instead predetermined by the machine. Therefore, you will realize that what you
once perceived as a journey involving choices at several intersections that
lead you to a destination you choose for yourself is in fact a single road the
destination of which has already been determined. In sum, the more choices you
have, the more meaning you have in your life. Consequently, what we see with
this proposal is an increase in the quality of life in general for terminally
ill patients because it allows them to exercise the right of bodily autonomy.
Furthermore, the terminally ill deserve respect and trust,
which are closely correlated with how much autonomy we give people. For
example, the government incarcerates criminals because we cannot trust these
people with their autonomy and their ability to make choices that don’t
negatively impact society. However, in the situation of the terminally ill who
are innocent and have not shown any tendencies to make poor choices that cause
harm to others, the government removal of such an important and potentially
life-saving choice from their lives essentially tells them that we do not trust
or respect their abilities to make their own life decisions. Consequently, the
government would be grossly overstepping its role.
In addition to the moral arguments, a persuasive case can be
made from a pragmatic perspective as well. To begin, the FDA takes an extremely
long time to approve a drug. This occurs because there is strong incentive for
them to be as thorough as possible: to minimize the risk of wrongfully approving
a drug that is in fact more harmful than helpful and inspiring mass criticism
from the public. At first glance, the meticulousness of the FDA may appear
beneficial for society because it ensures that only the drugs with proven
benefits that far outweigh any possible negative side effects will enter the
market. However, one must realize that in the case of terminally ill patients
who essentially have no other choice, the extreme length of time taken by the
FDA to approve a drug is essentially a death sentence for them. Thus, by giving
terminally ill patients access to non-approved drugs, the government at least
gives these people a chance to live.
No comments:
Post a Comment