ArticleThe Hastings Center report2019
Federal Right to Try: Where Is It Going?
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the Landscape of Do-it-Yourself Medicine.Citizen science : theory and practice · 2022Article
- Formulating an Ethics of Pharmaceutical Disinvestment.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- Right to Try Requests and Oncologists' Gatekeeping Obligations.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020Article
- Patient advocacy organizations' information for patients on pre-approval access to investigational treatments.BMC research notes · 2019Article
- The Critical Role of Medical Institutions in Expanding Access to Investigational Interventions.The Hastings Center report · 2019Article
- A survey of pediatric hematologists/oncologists' perspectives on single patient Expanded Access and Right to Try.Medicine access @ point of careArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Policy-makers, bioethicists, and patient advocates have been engaged in a fierce battle about the merits and potential harms of a federal right-to-try law. This debate about access to investigational medical products has raised profound questions about the limits of patient autonomy, appropriate government regulation, medical paternalism, and political rhetoric. For example, do patients have a right to access investigational therapies, as the right-to-try movement asserts? What is government's proper role in regulating and facilitating access to drugs that are still in development? In this review, we analyze the history of the right-to-try movement, review the arguments put forth by supporters and opponents of the legislation, and consider the movement's consequences. Two possible scenarios may emerge. One is that the right-to-try pathway may fail to meaningfully increase patient access to investigational products. Alternatively, certain companies may attempt to rely on the federal right-to-try legislation to sell investigational products, taking advantage of the provision that allows for direct costs, as there is currently no clear mechanism for enforcement or monitoring of cost calculations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30998281What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.