University of Kansas School of Law, USA.
J Law Med Ethics. 2009 Summer;37(2):269-79. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00371.x.
On May 2, 2006, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a startling opinion, Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach, held that terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other available options have a constitutional right to experimental treatment that FDA has not yet approved. Although ultimately overturned by the full court, Abigail Alliance generated considerable interest from various constituencies. Meanwhile, FDA proposed similar regulatory amendments, as have lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress. But proponents of expanded access fail to consider public health and consumer safety concerns. In particular, allowing patients to try unproven treatments, outside of controlled clinical trials risks both the study's outcome and the health of patients who might benefit from the deliberate, careful process of new drug approval as it currently operates under FDA's auspices.
2006 年 5 月 2 日,美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的一个分裂小组在一份令人震惊的意见中裁定,已经用尽所有其他可用选择的绝症患者有权获得食品和药物管理局尚未批准的实验性治疗。尽管该意见最终被整个法院推翻,但 Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach 案引起了各方的极大关注。与此同时,食品和药物管理局提出了类似的监管修正案,国会两党议员也提出了类似的修正案。但扩大准入的支持者没有考虑到公共卫生和消费者安全方面的问题。特别是,允许患者在不受控制的临床试验之外尝试未经证实的治疗方法,既会影响研究结果,也会影响那些可能受益于目前在食品和药物管理局监管下进行的新药批准这一深思熟虑、精心过程的患者的健康。