Medical negligence determinations, the "right to try," and expanded access to innovative treatments

Denise Meyerson*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article considers the issue of expanded access to innovative treatments in the context of recent legislative initiatives in the United Kingdom and the United States. In the United Kingdom, the supporters of legislative change argued that the common law principles governing medical negligence are a barrier to innovation. In an attempt to remove this perceived impediment, two bills proposed that innovating doctors sued for negligence should be able to rely in their defence on the fact that their decision to innovate was “responsible.” A decision to innovate would be regarded as responsible if it followed a specified process. Although these changes to the law of medical negligence were not passed, this article argues that the idea of a process-based approach was sound. In the United States, a number of states have passed “Right to Try” laws that permit doctors to prescribe and companies to provide investigational products without the need for FDA approval. These laws do not purport to and nor are they able to alter the obligations of individuals and companies under federal law. They are consequently unlikely to achieve their stated aim of expanding access to investigational products. This article argues that they nevertheless have a cogent rationale in so far as they highlight the need for rights-based reform to federal regulations governing access.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)385-400
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Bioethical Inquiry
Volume14
Issue number3
Early online date20 Jun 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2017

Keywords

  • Access to innovative treatments
  • Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill
  • Medical Innovation Bill
  • Negligence
  • Right to try laws

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Medical negligence determinations, the "right to try," and expanded access to innovative treatments'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this