Current Events > Trump signs "Right to Try" bill

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/politics/right-to-try-donald-trump/index.html

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump signed the "Right to Try Act" Wednesday, a measure aimed at helping terminally ill patients access drug treatments that are yet to be fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Trump, at a White House ceremony surrounded by patients and families who will be affected by the legislation, said his administration "worked hard on this" but said repeatedly he didn't understand why it hadn't been done before.
The bill will give terminally ill patients the right to seek drug treatments that remain in clinical trials and "have passed Phase 1 of the Food and Drug Administration's approval process" but have not been fully approved by the FDA. Some opponents of the bill argue that the legislation won't change much but could have a detrimental effect on how the FDA safeguards public health.

Trump said he thinks "hundreds of thousands" could be saved as a result of the legislation.
"With the passage of this bill, Americans will be able to seek cures," Trump said adding they will finally be given "the right to try."
"I would not be here today without the tireless efforts of dedicated members of Congress," Trump said, specifically pointing out Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Indiana, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pennsylvania, and Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas.
"Thanks to you the countless American lives with ultimately be saved," Trump said.

I don't see why the terminally ill should be told they can't try something that could help them, or at the very least help further research.
---

atleastyoutried.gif
---

I'm confused. I think the signing is a good thing.
---

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

I'm confused. I think the signing is a good thing.

me, too. but I think informed consent should apply to everything and everyone.
---

Sounds good to me. If I were literally dying I'd be willing to try a lot.

I don't get why the act needed to be signed. people already have the "right to try"
pharma companies can still decline to provide the requested drug for any reason. the only thing this law says is that the FDA can't stop you... which is a bit pointless, because they already approve over 99% of requests
it does absolve said pharma companies of responsibility for what happens to the patient, but that was already covered under the FDA's policies to some extent
---

This is actually a good Trump Bill.
---

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

I'm confused. I think the signing is a good thing.

On paper, yes. But, the drugs that haven't passed usually haven't passed for a very good reason; Lack of comprehensive testing. This bill would inadvertently (or maybe intentionally) see thousands of poor people being used as test subjects for various new drugs.
---

I think laypeople have this exaggerated view of experimental treatments with expectations that they'll be the exception.

The reality is that the whole process of FDA approval is there to serve as a filter from treatments that aren't efficacious or even downright harmful. I'll be a doctor in less than a year and I've learned so much about the potential harm we can do. My job is just as much protecting patients from the plethora of harmful approaches or snake oil salesman than it is treating them. There's just too much to know to expect any lay person to even come close to an informed opinion about treatments.

My fear is something like this is thin-veiled PR boosts ("Think of the poor, dying patients!", but really is just handing big pharma a boon by taking shortcuts and selling false hope.

There already is a process for treatments that show drastically improved survival benefits to get fast-track approvals. Jumping from Phase I to terminally ill patients just seems like poor stewardship, and a little exploitative IMO.
---

008Zulu posted...

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

I'm confused. I think the signing is a good thing.

On paper, yes. But, the drugs that haven't passed usually haven't passed for a very good reason; Lack of comprehensive testing. This bill would inadvertently (or maybe intentionally) see thousands of poor people being used as test subjects for various new drugs.

... people who are gonna die anyway and may find something that works.

Rimmer_Dall posted...

... people who are gonna die anyway and may find something that works.

Or may cause terrible side effects leading to significant harm and decrease in quality of the remainder of their life, which may also come with financial burden of the loved ones left behind.

Seriously, people who don't deal with patients every day have absolutely no clue just how harmful some things can be. Just because something *can* be done doesn't mean it should. And when there is already a process to fast-track drugs with initially promising results, taking that a step further is just going to increase the amount of harmful or ineffective treatments out there.
---

While I approve of this idea in theory I worry about companies, and I use this word intentionally, preying on the individual and thrusting them "new and improved" medication with a plethora of side effects that we simply don't know about. I worry these companies basically could see desperate people begging for a cute as a farm to test out their new and eventually expensive drugs out on.

We'll see
---

Trump's America
---

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
---

The paranoid part of me thinks this is just a way to convince vulnerable people to be test subjects before they pass on.

Absolutely a chance it could lead to some breakthroughs... but some people are gonna die horrifically and in a way they'll regret consenting to as soon as it starts happening.
---

Spooking posted...

President Trump has always been pro-science, so this is of no surprise.

I'll take "what the fuck is ethics" for 500, Alex.
---

Spooking posted...

President Trump has always been pro-science, so this is of no surprise.

Trump is anti vaccine. He's far from being pro-science.
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

008Zulu posted...

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

I'm confused. I think the signing is a good thing.

On paper, yes. But, the drugs that haven't passed usually haven't passed for a very good reason; Lack of comprehensive testing. This bill would inadvertently (or maybe intentionally) see thousands of poor people being used as test subjects for various new drugs.

... people who are gonna die anyway and may find something that works.

I will be honest with you I would rather these people take untested or under tested treatments that might help them rather then rely on quack treatments that will do nothing and just scam them out of money. As when they are that desperate
all the woo peddlers come out of the woodwork.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Spooking posted...

President Trump has always been pro-science, so this is of no surprise.

Trump is anti vaccine. He's far from being pro-science.

And also anti-climate science.
---

WTF did Trump do something right?
---

creativerealms posted...

I will be honest with you I would rather these people take untested or under tested treatments that might help them rather then rely on quack treatments that will do nothing and just scam them out of money. As when they are that despite all the woo peddlers come out of the woodwork.

I think you're failing to recognize that the potential treatment options from this pool are the woo. Or rather the woo that never makes it to market because pharma has to operate under regulations as opposed to the actual woo.

But drugs very, very often don't make it through clinical trials despite initial promise. The public just never sees this. Granting access to these drugs is really not much different from homeopathic or naturopathic alternatives (read: snake oil) from an evidenced-based standpoint.

Again, science is not done through major breakthroughs. The process is much longer and much more boring, but a lot safer.
---

008Zulu posted...

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

I'm confused. I think the signing is a good thing.

On paper, yes. But, the drugs that haven't passed usually haven't passed for a very good reason; Lack of comprehensive testing. This bill would inadvertently (or maybe intentionally) see thousands of poor people being used as test subjects for various new drugs.

Why are you going on about poor people?
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

creativerealms posted...

I will be honest with you I would rather these people take untested or under tested treatments that might help them rather then rely on quack treatments that will do nothing and just scam them out of money. As when they are that despite all the woo peddlers come out of the woodwork.

I think you're failing to recognize that the potential treatment options from this pool are the woo. Or rather the woo that never makes it to market because pharma has to operate under regulations as opposed to the actual woo.

But drugs very, very often don't make it through clinical trials despite initial promise. The public just never sees this. Granting access to these drugs is really not much different from homeopathic or naturopathic alternatives (read: snake oil) from an evidenced-based standpoint.

Again, science is not done through major breakthroughs. The process is much longer and much more boring, but a lot safer.

I see. I can understand that.
---

---

Soviet_Poland posted...

Or may cause terrible side effects leading to significant harm and decrease in quality of the remainder of their life

Chemo therapy in some cases???

Absolutely.
---

If you're a doctor then you can advise someone to try to treatment or not, for whatever reason (like if you think it's a scam).

But at least they have the right to try. I don't think you can criticize anyone for voting for this bill or Trump for signing it
---

Hmm..for once something he does is good. To bad I'm sure tomorrow he'll do something asshole ish to negate the goodwill from this, you know the Trump cycle.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I don't think you can criticize anyone for voting for this bill or Trump for signing it

I think being concerned about the risk of companies using this as an opportunity to thrust dangerous drugs at needy people is a valid worry.
---

Capn Circus posted...

Chemo therapy in some cases???

Yes, like chemo therapy in some cases.

And some of these drugs will be new chemo drugs with an unknown side effect/toxicity profile and no proven efficacy, as opposed to the chemo regimens that do have data behind them.
---

tremain07 posted...

Hmm..for once something he does is good. To bad I'm sure tomorrow he'll do something asshole ish to negate the goodwill from this, you know the Trump cycle.

Lol.. you should pay attention more often. Trump is doing good every day.
---

That's why there are doctors. As a doctor, you can advise your patient not to try a treatment.

And this is only for terminally ill patients
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

That's why there are doctors. As a doctor, you can advise your patient not to try a treatment.

And this is only for terminally ill patients

I know this, but I still it's reasonable to be worried about pharmaceutical companies preying on the needy, especially with the kickbacks certain doctors receive. Ultimately I think it's a good policy, but I'm concerned about the ramifications
---

Good decision. I'm anti-Trump but fully ready to acknowledge when he makes a good decision.
---

Bringit posted...

The paranoid part of me thinks this is just a way to convince vulnerable people to be test subjects before they pass on.

Absolutely a chance it could lead to some breakthroughs... but some people are gonna die horrifically and in a way they'll regret consenting to as soon as it starts happening.

This would be my fear tbh
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Bringit posted...

The paranoid part of me thinks this is just a way to convince vulnerable people to be test subjects before they pass on.

Absolutely a chance it could lead to some breakthroughs... but some people are gonna die horrifically and in a way they'll regret consenting to as soon as it starts happening.

This would be my fear tbh

Yeah, but if you're 100% gonna die in 2 months, but have a 0.05% chance to survive with this experimental trial, fuck it if I'm gonna die anyway give me the long shot, and be ready with the damn morphine if I end up in excruciating pain
---

Capn Circus posted...

Soviet_Poland posted...

Or may cause terrible side effects leading to significant harm and decrease in quality of the remainder of their life

Chemo therapy in some cases???

Absolutely.

This, I seen my mom go through that shit and fuck it. I rather die from whatever the hell it is I have then go through that.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

That's why there are doctors. As a doctor, you can advise your patient not to try a treatment.

And this is only for terminally ill patients

The increasing prevalence of people seeking alternative medicine and "naturopathic" medicine shows patients are easily swayed, even outside of their doctor's recommendations. Coupled with false hope in light of terminal illness and this is exacerbated.

The problem is when mainstream medicine takes shortcuts, you get shit like Thalidomide and an erosion of the public's trust with modern medicine.

Without reading the bill, it's unclear whether or not these still need to be prescribed by a physician, or if there is some pathway that circumvents this because of the "right to try." The emotional language in the article kind of worries me a bit. If it still needs to be prescribed, then at least there is still that safeguard. But as much as I try and put forth the ethical position here, I'm not blinded to the subset of my profession that is morally bankrupt or too burned out to care. I've rotated with some doctors with outdated practices or otherwise don't follow evidence-based medicine as well. I'm sure some oncologists are not exempt from that.
---

DavidWong posted...

Good decision. I'm anti-Trump but fully ready to acknowledge when he makes a good decision.

This though
---

this is the best thing Trump has done his hole presidancy
---

DavidWong posted...

Yeah, but if you're 100% gonna die in 2 months, but have a 0.05% chance to survive with this experimental trial, fuck it if I'm gonna die anyway give me the long shot, and be ready with the damn morphine if I end up in excruciating pain

I recommend you shadow in a hospital at some point and get a glimpse of how much of a train wreck people can be when it comes to disease and how a snowball's chance in hell is not always worth the potential complications. You literally have no idea the hell you can put yourself through more than just pain that can be solved with a little morphine.
---

Paging

@Coffeebeanz
@megamanfreakXD
@NeuralLaxative
@DanHarenChamp
@MrPeppers

I need to sample your opinions on this.
---

Does this give me the right to try euthanasia if I feel I'm too far gone?

Soviet_Poland posted...

DavidWong posted...

Yeah, but if you're 100% gonna die in 2 months, but have a 0.05% chance to survive with this experimental trial, fuck it if I'm gonna die anyway give me the long shot, and be ready with the damn morphine if I end up in excruciating pain

I recommend you shadow in a hospital at some point and get a glimpse of how much of a train wreck people can be when it comes to disease and how a snowball's chance in hell is not always worth the potential complications. You literally have no idea the hell you can put yourself through more than just pain that can be solved with a little morphine.

Well, I am terrified of death, so I would rather live in agony than die.
---

Clinical trials have specific inclusion criteria when enlisting patients onto experimental trials. To include patients who don't meet the criteria, you risk confounding the results and getting poor data.

So to guise this as furthering research is missing how the scientific method is even done.

This bill is not in the spirit of evidence-based medicine and is based on emotional appeal. I can't be the only person who sees this.
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

Clinical trials have specific inclusion criteria when enlisting patients onto experimental trials. To include patients who don't meet the criteria, you risk confounding the results and getting poor data.

So to guise this as furthering research is missing how the scientific method is even done.

This bill is not in the spirit of evidence-based medicine and is based on emotional appeal. I can't be the only person who sees this.

u r literally communist
---

foreveraIone posted...

u r literally communist

*woosh*
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

foreveraIone posted...

u r literally communist

*woosh*

I wasn't responding to u seriously
---