Do U.S. Ebola Patients Have a Constitutional Right to Try Experimental Drugs?

[Brian4Liberty]

Do U.S. Ebola Patients Have a Constitutional Right to Try Experimental Drugs?
By Damon Root - Oct. 9, 2014


Assume the following dire scenario: You become infected with Ebola and are quarantined by U.S. medical officials. A promising new experimental drug is in the works, but it hasn't yet received final approval. You want to try the drug but the authorities won't let you. Do you have a constitutional right to try to preserve your life by taking the experimental drug? Most Americans would probably say yes. But according to a prominent federal court, the answer is no.

In 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against a group of terminally ill cancer patients who were suing the FDA in order to gain access to experimental drugs that had the potential to save their lives.
...
More:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/09/ebola-do-terminally-ill-patients-have-a

[Brian4Liberty]

It is outrageous that terminal patients can not try experimental drugs or drugs that are not "approved" by the FDA. It seems as though this court case has the argument backwards though. Shouldn't the case really ask "does the FDA have the constitutional right stop anyone from using an experimental drug?" The answer to that constitutional question should be a resounding "no".

Per the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Anti Federalist]

Of course you don't.

You have a natural right to do so.

But the CON-stitution says (or at least the Clowns in Gowns that tell us from their mighty perch what that document says) that the FedGov basically owns you, you are chattel property, with which the state can dispose of at it's whim.

Now, get back in line and move the fuck along.

[staerker]

Per the Commerce Clause, you must submit official documentation that proves that the drug was researched, developed, and fully produced in one single state.

No natural chemicals may be used in the production of these drugs if said natural chemicals have ever crossed state borders in the past fifty years, unless proper regulations are followed.

/constitution worship

[Ronin Truth]

No, because the 13th Amendment bans (non-governmental) slavery.

[CaptainAmerica]

natural right...big difference.

[osan]

Who gives a damn what a court thinks? The simple fact that a judge would make such a criminally ignorant decision is prima facie proof that they and the so-called "government" they represent have less than zero validity. We are in no measure obliged or otherwise bound to obey any command these people might issue. Unfortunately, these people have guns, the will to use them under the false imprimatur of "the state", and the silent consent of the vast majority.

IOW, we are screwed on that front until such time that we come to our senses and take back by force that which is the birthright of every man on earth because Theye will not be forthcoming in response to polite requests.

As things stand, we are way beyond caring what courts think or being reasonably able to turn to them for justice.

[idiom]

This should be any easy win issue for Rand and a dem. Nice easy reform.

[Anti Federalist]

This should be any easy win issue for Rand and a dem. Nice easy reform.

A nice easy reform that will enhance real personal freedom in a life or death circumstance.

Which means it will probably go nowhere.

[GunnyFreedom]

Convoluted question.

NO you do not have a Constitutional right to have access to a new drug. Neither, for that matter, do you have a natural right to a new drug. If the company who invented it does not want to provide it, then that's all there is to it. It's theirs.

However, the FDA has no authority to prohibit access to a new drug either. If the manufacturer is OK with you taking it, and you want to take it, the FDA has zero Constitutional authority to step in and say "no."

The decision was wrong, because it upheld an FDA prohibition which itself is fundamentally unconstitutional. The complainant was wrong, because there is no such thing as a 'constitutional right to experimental drugs' anymore than there is a constitutional right to 'healthcare.' This experimental drug is the property of someone else. You neither have a Constitutional nor a natural right to access it. You cannot call up the Sheriff and ask him to roll down to the pharmaceutical company and take the drug from them at gunpoint.

You DO, however have a right to not be blocked byt he government from consensual access to said drug.

[Working Poor]

I hope all of my buds get some colloidal silver or learn how to make it for yourself it is easy to make get a kit that has high ratings even the most top of the line expensive kit is under a $100 and well worth it. CS kills viruses and I think if you take it you stand just as good a chance of living thru Ebola as you do with an experimental drug maybe you won't even get it at all if you start taking it now.

I don't trust big pharma to come up it something that would make me well from ebola or any other disease. The only thing the medical industrial complex is good at is trauma cases they absolutely suck at treating disease IMO. Rich white man make bad medicine hate life.

[Brian4Liberty]

Convoluted question.

Yeah, you'd kind of expect Reason to have a little more detail to this story.

[presence]

Not while there's a war on drugs.

[Anti Federalist]

Good clarification, and true, but I read it a little different:


to Try Experimental Drugs?

That, to me, assumed that the question of ownership and acquisition had already been settled.

Maybe Big Pharma made it and you bought it, or maybe you grew it in a pot in your backyard, either way, only an unjust and illegitimate government would prohibit you from taking it.


Convoluted question.

NO you do not have a Constitutional right to have access to a new drug. Neither, for that matter, do you have a natural right to a new drug. If the company who invented it does not want to provide it, then that's all there is to it. It's theirs.

However, the FDA has no authority to prohibit access to a new drug either. If the manufacturer is OK with you taking it, and you want to take it, the FDA has zero Constitutional authority to step in and say "no."

The decision was wrong, because it upheld an FDA prohibition which itself is fundamentally unconstitutional. The complainant was wrong, because there is no such thing as a 'constitutional right to experimental drugs' anymore than there is a constitutional right to 'healthcare.' This experimental drug is the property of someone else. You neither have a Constitutional nor a natural right to access it. You cannot call up the Sheriff and ask him to roll down to the pharmaceutical company and take the drug from them at gunpoint.

You DO, however have a right to not be blocked byt he government from consensual access to said drug.

[GunnyFreedom]

Good clarification, and true, but I read it a little different:



That, to me, assumed that the question of ownership and acquisition had already been settled.

Maybe Big Pharma made it and you bought it, or maybe you grew it in a pot in your backyard, either way, only an unjust and illegitimate government would prohibit you from taking it.

Good point, you were talking about trying it once access had been arranged, and I was talking about the access itself. What you said is true from the assumptions you had made, and what I said is true from the assumptions I had made. Brian4Liberty is right that the article itself left a lot to be assumed. :)

[Pericles]

Of course you don't.

You have a natural right to do so.

But the CON-stitution says (or at least the Clowns in Gowns that tell us from their mighty perch what that document says) that the FedGov basically owns you, you are chattel property, with which the state can dispose of at it's whim.

Now, get back in line and move the fuck along.

You have a natural right to try any drug you can afford.

[Origanalist]

Convoluted question.

NO you do not have a Constitutional right to have access to a new drug. Neither, for that matter, do you have a natural right to a new drug. If the company who invented it does not want to provide it, then that's all there is to it. It's theirs.

However, the FDA has no authority to prohibit access to a new drug either. If the manufacturer is OK with you taking it, and you want to take it, the FDA has zero Constitutional authority to step in and say "no."

The decision was wrong, because it upheld an FDA prohibition which itself is fundamentally unconstitutional. The complainant was wrong, because there is no such thing as a 'constitutional right to experimental drugs' anymore than there is a constitutional right to 'healthcare.' This experimental drug is the property of someone else. You neither have a Constitutional nor a natural right to access it. You cannot call up the Sheriff and ask him to roll down to the pharmaceutical company and take the drug from them at gunpoint.

You DO, however have a right to not be blocked byt he government from consensual access to said drug.

You're reasoning is sound but it would seem you are wrong. Apparently you do not have that right, because one of the superior beings said you don't.

[DamianTV]

I think a better question to ask is does the US Govt have the Authority to tell people what they can and can not do with their own lives? Too many Americans have already forgotten we are NOT their property, and "Permission" to take a drug is not in thier power to either grant or deny.

[donnay]

This is a case where government and Big pHARMa work hand-in-hand to create the monopoly over our lives. Get rid of both and you wouldn't have these problems.

[buck000]

I agree with the sentiment that you have a natural right to try a drug that may save your life. Just sign the requisite waivers, etc., and go for it.

Seems like the FDA has provisions for this, though, the Dallas Ebola victim apparently got special approval for an experimental drug: http://www.npr.org/2014/10/06/354124327/dallas-ebola-patient-receives-experimental-drug

[Working Poor]

I will not beg this system to help me get well fuck them!

[donnay]

I will not beg this system to help me get well fuck them!

Yeah, my sentiments exactly.

[Anti Federalist]

You have a natural right to try any drug you can afford.

Or make or grow yourself.

[Brian4Liberty]

Seems like the FDA has provisions for this, though, the Dallas Ebola victim apparently got special approval for an experimental drug: http://www.npr.org/2014/10/06/354124327/dallas-ebola-patient-receives-experimental-drug

It seems they will make exceptions when it comes to a contagious and rapidly fatal disease. Imagine that. Cancer? Your problem, you have to wait.

And the drug that they gave the Dallas patient was not designed or intended to work against Ebola. Seems that it didn't work.

ZMapp (a three anti-body cocktail) is designed specifically for Ebola, but unfortunately, they don't have a manufacturing process that they can scale-up for real production. They can only make extremely small quantities. They inject tobacco leaves individually in order to manipulate the leaf to grow the anti-bodies. Not something that works well for large production.

[TheTexan]

Well, one thing is sure... you have the right to ask for permission to use experimental drugs.

[Mr Tansill]

NO you do not have a Constitutional right to have access to a new drug. Neither, for that matter, do you have a natural right to a new drug. If the company who invented it does not want to provide it, then that's all there is to it. It's theirs.

However, the FDA has no authority to prohibit access to a new drug either. If the manufacturer is OK with you taking it, and you want to take it, the FDA has zero Constitutional authority to step in and say "no."



So I read article (blog), and I think a very important detail is missing (i.e. was the drug developed using tax money). I agree with your conclusion, but hold that if the company which developed the drug used taxpayer money in any way, shape, or form (research grant, tax breaks, tax benefit to another arm of the company, free printed money from the federal reserve, etc), then that company is effectively operating as a branch of the US government, and is therefore owned (at least in part) by the people of the United States, which, IMO, gives them a right to the product of that labor, as it results directly from the investment (willing or otherwise) of US citizens.

- Mr. Tansill

[staerker]

So I read article (blog), and I think a very important detail is missing (i.e. was the drug developed using tax money). I agree with your conclusion, but hold that if the company which developed the drug used taxpayer money in any way, shape, or form (research grant, tax breaks, tax benefit to another arm of the company, free printed money from the federal reserve, etc), then that company is effectively operating as a branch of the US government, and is therefore owned (at least in part) by the people of the United States, which, IMO, gives them a right to the product of that labor, as it results directly from the investment (willing or otherwise) of US citizens.

- Mr. Tansill

You don't own the US government, it owns you.