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
WHO: AIDS leading cause of death, disease in women
Lawmaker wants probe of E. coli and school lunches
Campaign to push for chocolate milk
Button battery can look like a treat to a toddler
The People's Pharmacy: Solutions for painful breast-feeding

Pelosi answers questions at Swedish Medical Center
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi answers questions after addressing the media at Swedish Medical Center regarding health care.
nwjobs

Post a comment

Michelle Goodman blogs about work/life balance.
How to tell your office you're gravely ill
Post a comment
nwautos

Choosing a new sedan? Weigh the impact of your choice on your wallet and on the planet.
Post a comment
- 'Missing' SeaTac man found with new name, in new state
- Bombs, guns found at home of suspect in Officer Brenton's slaying
- Police: DNA from officer's slaying matches suspect
- How an underdog named Mike McGinn took City Hall
- 3 Cascade Mountain passes close due to snow; more rain, wind expected Sunday
- Prosecutors consider charges against suspect in police shooting
- Steve Kelley | Hasselbeck gives Seahawks' sagging season a stay of execution
- Three more fires ignite in Greenwood
- Teenage serial burglar suspected in more Camano Island burglaries
- The birth of 'Grunge,' in photos by Michael Lavine
- House health bill unacceptable to many in Senate
246 - Prosecutors prepare charges against suspect in police shooting
214 - Pelosi tours Seattle's Swedish after health-care vote
153 - Prosecutors prepare charges against suspect in police shooting
138 - Alleged shooter tied to mosque of 9/11 hijackers
135 - Obama puts heat on Senate to speed health bill
123 - Resolute Fort Hood soldiers ready for return
108 - McGinn more than doubles his lead over Mallahan
93 - Ayn Rand: goddess of the market, gateway to the American right
79 - Cutaia says replay handled properly on Austin TD
66
- For 80-year-old Maple Valley man, hoops aren't just a dream
- Plans call for Triangle to become West Seattle gateway
- 10 ways to take control of your health
- Three more fires ignite in Greenwood
- The birth of 'Grunge,' in photos by Michael Lavine
- 'Missing' SeaTac man found with new name, in new state
- Bombs, guns found at home of suspect in Officer Brenton's slaying
- Taste | Ruth Reichl still reigns as queen of America's culinary scene
- Silver Lake restaurant destroyed by fire
- Pakistani-American cafe, bar owner on verge of being Granite Falls mayor





