Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Archae

(46,301 posts)
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:10 PM Mar 2016

Just great, Maine now has the "right" to have peoples' wallets cleaned out by quacks.

Laetrile, anyone?

Homeopathy?

Maine: New England’s 1st ‘right to try’ experimental drugs

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Maine is the first state in New England to give dying patients the right to use experimental drugs.

Republican Gov. Paul LePage signed legislation Wednesday that allows terminally ill patients to use treatments that have not received final approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The bill stipulates that doctors and drug companies wouldn’t be held liable for any harm; it does not require insurance companies to pay for the treatments, which will be available to patients expected to live less than six months.

http://wbay.com/ap/maine-new-englands-1st-right-to-try-experimental-drugs/

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just great, Maine now has the "right" to have peoples' wallets cleaned out by quacks. (Original Post) Archae Mar 2016 OP
. HuckleB Mar 2016 #1
While that could well be an unintended consequence and a danger... LeftishBrit Mar 2016 #2
Yeah. I'm sitting on the same fence. drm604 Apr 2016 #3

LeftishBrit

(41,202 posts)
2. While that could well be an unintended consequence and a danger...
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:53 PM
Mar 2016

I think such legislation is intended for a different purpose: not for enabling woo-medicines, but for allowing people to try medical drugs that have undergone some testing, but not yet reached the final stage. Usually these would be medicines that have been shown to be relatively safe, and where there's some reason for thinking that the medicine might work, but where effectiveness has not been fully proved.

I'm divided on this. On the one hand, it could enable quacks and truly dodgy Pharma types (such as Wakefield!); on the other hand, if you're certain to die without treatment, maybe you should have the right to try medication that might work.

drm604

(16,230 posts)
3. Yeah. I'm sitting on the same fence.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 10:01 PM
Apr 2016

I understand and support the goal of protecting people from quacks, but I also don't feel right about stopping informed people who are dying from trying things that may actually help but haven't yet met legal standards.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience»Just great, Maine now has...