University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 2025 M St NW #575, Washington, DC, 20036, USA.
J Bioeth Inq. 2019 Sep;16(3):463-466. doi: 10.1007/s11673-019-09918-0. Epub 2019 Aug 23.
This comment responds to a defence of the right to try, a law adopted by the United States and many state governments that seeks to expand access to experimental drugs. In defending the right to try, Meyerson argues that it is part of a broader rights-based approach for patient access to innovation. But a drug that is still part of the experimental process may not be an innovation-indeed, it may be a failure and even harmful or dangerous. Further, this approach does not weigh other rights that may be at stake such as the property rights of the drug maker or the rights of future patients seeking access to cures. Lastly, research has found that many patients often fail to receive recommended treatments and preventive care from their providers, let alone experimental or innovative therapies. These policy problems suggest that there is a need for patients to have a greater involvement and role in their care and in how research funding is made, but the right to try fails to address these problems.
这篇评论回应了对尝试权的辩护，尝试权是美国和许多州政府通过的一项法律，旨在扩大对实验性药物的获取。在为尝试权辩护时，迈耶森认为，这是患者获取创新药物的更广泛基于权利方法的一部分。但是，仍处于实验过程中的药物可能不是创新药物——事实上，它可能是失败的，甚至是有害或危险的。此外，这种方法没有权衡可能处于危险之中的其他权利，例如药物制造商的财产权或寻求获得治疗方法的未来患者的权利。最后，研究发现，许多患者经常未能从其提供者那里获得建议的治疗和预防保健，更不用说实验性或创新性疗法了。这些政策问题表明，患者需要在其护理和研究资金的使用方面有更大的参与度和作用，但尝试权未能解决这些问题。
