Originally published August 8, 2007 at 12:00 AM | Page modified August 8, 2007 at 2:05 AM
Court won't bend drug rule for dying patients
Dying people do not have the right to obtain unapproved drugs that are potentially lifesaving, even if their doctors say the treatment offers...
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — Dying people do not have the right to obtain unapproved drugs that are potentially lifesaving, even if their doctors say the treatment offers the best hope for survival, a U.S. appeals court in Washington ruled Tuesday.
In an 8-2 decision, the court said federal drug regulators are entrusted by law with deciding when new drugs are safe for wide use.
Food and Drug Administration approval of drugs generally requires testing that can involve years of trials and thousands of patients.
The families of terminally ill patients, several of whom died after they were denied promising drugs still being tested, filed the lawsuit. They said dying patients were far more willing to take risks and should not be forced to wait for new treatments to win final FDA OK.
The judges said the families should take their pleas to Congress, not the courts.
Leaders of the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs said they would appeal to the Supreme Court. The group was named for Abigail Burroughs, 21, a University of Virginia student who died of cancer in 2001. Her father said she was denied two new anti-cancer drugs that were being testing and were recommended by her oncologist.
In 2003, the alliance petitioned the FDA and urged it to change its rules so drug companies could make available to dying patients "investigational drugs" that had won preliminary approval.
The FDA rejected the plea.
With the aid of the Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit, the alliance sued the FDA.
In 2004, a federal judge rejected the alliance's lawsuit. But last year, a three-judge appeals-court panel sided with the group. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court said a "terminally ill, mentally competent adult patient" has a right to "potentially lifesaving investigational new drugs" that have been found to be safe for humans.
Before that decision could take effect, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia voted to rehear the case. Tuesday, it reversed the panel's ruling.
"We conclude there is no fundamental right ... of access to experimental drugs for the terminally ill," said Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President Bush.
![]()
Griffith's opinion was joined by conservative and liberal members of the appeals court.
The two dissenters were Judge Judith Rogers, a President Clinton appointee, and Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg, a President Reagan appointee.
"In the end, it is startling," Rogers wrote, that the Constitution has been read to include unnamed "fundamental rights" to marry, to control a child's education, to have sex in private and to have an abortion, "but the right to save one's life is left out."
Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
On the left hand, answers aren't easy
Getting active outside can bring sunshine to your winter
How to encourage healthy computing
Obese people asked to eat fast food for health study
Charlie Sheen claims AA has a 5 percent success rate — is he right?

nwautos
Turismo upgrade "Gran Turismo 5: XL Edition" for PlayStation 3 has features such as new car-tuning settings, new NASCAR vehicles, better replay video...
Post a comment
- Lakewood cop accused of embezzling $150K meant for slain officers' families
- 3 big health insurers stockpile $2.4 billion as rates keep rising
- Agency set to investigate handling of 911 call about Josh Powell
- Quick decisions: How Washington hired its new football staff
- Historic day for gay marriage as another fight looms
- Justin Wilcox's versatile defensive style is the right fit for Huskies | Jerry Brewer
- It's Terrence Time: Enigmatic Ross leads Huskies
- Social worker recounts minutes before Powell fire
- $25B settlement reached over foreclosure abuses
- Club promoter convicted in brutal 2010 murder of Des Moines prostitute
- Gay-marriage bill passes House, awaits Gregoire's signature
454 - Historic day for gay marriage as another fight looming
352 - 3 big health insurers stockpile $2.4 billion as rates keep rising
239 - Source: NY, California to sign mortgage settlement
228 - Wanted in Seattle classrooms: more teachers of color
215 - Oregon live game thread
155 - Pac-12 picks ... including the UW game
140 - Council members get briefing on arena proposal, minus details
95 - Worker: Josh Powell told son he had 'surprise'
90 - AP Source: Obama to change birth control rule
75
- State Medicaid program to stop paying for unneeded ER visits
- 3 big health insurers stockpile $2.4 billion as rates keep rising
- Wanted in Seattle classrooms: more teachers of color
- One man's audacious pursuit of sailing history
- Darren Berg gets 18-year sentence for Ponzi scheme
- $25B settlement reached over foreclosure abuses
- 'Gauguin and Polynesia': dazzling mix-and-match | Art review
- A wandering gene's destructive path | Book review
- Economy, blogs give survivalists new reason to look to Northwest
- Navy fliers' love-hate relationship with water-crash survival class







