Do patients with no other treatment options have a moral right to unproven drugs? Write a 2-3 page that explains and defends your view on this issue. In addition to reviewing the suggested resources, you are encouraged to locate additional resources in your public library, or authoritative online sites to provide additional support for your viewpoint. Be sure to weave and cite the resources throughout your work. Address the following points:
Identify relevant ethical theories and moral principles.
Explain how the principle of informed consent is relevant to the issue.
Explain the costs and benefits of making unproven, unapproved experimental drugs widely available to patients. Consider the costs and benefits not only to the individual patients who take these drugs but also potential costs and benefits to other patients.
Explain arguments using examples for and against offering pre-approved drugs to wider pools of patients.
Support your view using ethical theories or moral principles (or both) that you find most relevant to the issue.
Sample Answer
The debate over "Right to Try" legislation and access to investigational new drugs (INDs) for terminally ill patients is a profound intersection of medical ethics, personal liberty, and public safety. When a patient has exhausted all standard-of-care treatments, the question shifts from "How do we cure?" to "What do we owe the dying?"
I contend that while patients have a moral right to seek unproven drugs, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the collective duty to protect the integrity of medical science and the safety of the broader patient population.
. Relevant Ethical Theories and Moral Principles
The debate is primarily contested between three ethical frameworks:
Autonomy: This principle asserts that individuals have the moral right to make decisions about their own bodies and healthcare. In this context, proponents argue that a competent, terminally ill patient should have the freedom to accept risks that they deem acceptable.
Utilitarianism: This theory focuses on the "greatest good for the greatest number." A utilitarian analysis must weigh the potential benefit to one individual against the risk of undermining clinical trials that could lead to proven cures for thousands.
Non-maleficence and Beneficence: The duty to "do no harm" (non-maleficence) often conflicts with the duty to "do good" (beneficence). In many cases, unproven drugs may actually hasten death or increase pain, violating non-maleficence even if the intent was beneficent.
2. The Role of Informed Consent
Informed consent is the ethical "linchpin" of access to experimental drugs. However, in terminal cases, the validity of consent is often questioned.