Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Experimental drugs are certain medicines not officially approved to treat specific illnesses. The use of unproven therapy might be unsafe, as the effect of such a cure is unpredictable. As a rule, doctors prescribe and document treatment that is counted in the official medical database. Indeed, incurable patients might use experimental drugs as a single chance to ease pain symptoms. It is necessary to examine whether terminal patients have a moral right to the experimental treatment and suggest possible outcomes for this type of cure.
It is essential to understand what is the right to experimental drugs. The right to use testing medicines appeared in the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs versus von Eschenbach, when Abigails doctor recommended using an untested drug to cure cancer (Mahant, 2020, p. 1). 2018 President Donald Trump signed the Act allowing experimental drug usage (Mahant, 2020). One of the reasons for this Act to be signed is patient comfort and lower risks, as the person might need to go abroad to receive the same medicine legally. It allowed incurable patients to have a chance for their health improvement. Therefore, there is a legal right to use developmental medicine for patients with cancer and other complicated illnesses.
Ethical theories on unproven medicines explain the use of such treatment differently. For instance, the consequence-based approach promotes the comfort and happiness of patients, and therefore, the usage of unapproved therapy aims to improve patients moral condition (Amer, 2019). The duty-based theory highlights the importance of a doctors duty to people but underestimates the patients comfort and contentment. In any case, the doctor should deal with their choice, as they must choose between good and bad (Melvin, 2020, para 1). According to the study, no theory explains ethical or moral dilemmas and correctly instructs the doctor (Amer, 2019). Moral principles of medical workers play a significant role, as such attributes as justice, autonomy, nonmaleficence, and beneficence are crucial in using unapproved medicines (Melvin, 2020). Moral principles are meant to be used in combination, not in isolation. It is necessary to be guided by medical ethics and the Hippocratic Oath. Still, in case of the patients negative outcome or death, moral responsibility becomes a moral burden for the doctor.
The role of informed consent is relevant to this issue, as the medical organization takes responsibility for prescribed medicines. Primarily, the informed consent informs the patient about possible negative results of the procedure. In the case of a patients agreement, the medical organization withdraws responsibility for the patients adverse outcomes. However, informed consent is connected to high risk and moral imperative (Groenhof et al., 2022, p. 1). Doctors, nurses, physicians, and other medical workers have to risk the patients life and own reputation and think ahead several steps before allowing experimental medicines.
However, doctors and critics worldwide warn people about the negative consequences of using this type of treatment. Experimental drugs did not undergo proper research and were not certified for legal usage. They claim that informed consent might be useless to ordinary patients because of complicated professional terminology, which is difficult to understand. Moreover, there is a high risk of financial losses for patients, as they or their families might not be ready to provide costs for such treatment (Mahant, 2020). Accordingly, the medical organization can undermine trust in other patients and suffer significant financial losses in case of damaging outcomes. It is possible to suggest the medical agency provides experimental treatment for many patients. In that case, there is a high risk of spoiling the reputation of healthcare providers and sponsors, which might result in lengthy litigation and further financial expenses. Therefore, there are more financial losses than benefits in using experimental medicines.
Many sponsors doubt participating in promoting experimental drugs for a broader range of patients because of potentially harmful outcomes. Most sponsors aim to cooperate with fully approved medicine, as the potential cost of implementing experimental drugs is about 1,9-2,5 million dollars (Mahant, 2020, p. 2). After considering ethical approaches and potential costs, there is an approach that might be efficient for making experimental drugs available to patients. Indeed, certain conditions, for example, include policies and programs that will incorporate patients interests, security, qualification of professionals, dosing, and report on results to contribute to public health (Mahant, 2020). Furthermore, involving an independent or neutral body or an ethics committee to oversee the procedure is necessary, as the method of experimental drug usage is not yet approved by Food and Drug Administration (Mahant, 2020, p. 4). For now, implementing untested drug usage has more disadvantages than benefits. Providing the abovementioned terms might help make offering unapproved drugs safer for patients.
Overall, there is still a contradictory issue on using experimental treatment. A combination of moral principles and ethical theories might push the doctor into a tough choice between risking their career and the patients life. Terminal patients have a moral right to have experimental treatment with the inclusion of risks and adverse outcomes. Today, an experimental drug is a single chance of recovery for most incurable patients. Indeed, there are no sufficient conditions to provide safe usage of untested medications to more vast pools of people. Therefore, making such treatment available for all can become a crucial mistake until specific policies and programs are provided to make the usage of experimental drugs safe.
References
Amer, A. B. (2019). Understanding the ethical theories in medical practice. Open Journal of Nursing, 9, 188-193.
Groenhof, T. K. J., Mostert, M., Lea, N. C., Haitjema, S., de Vries, M. C., van Dijk, W. B., Grobbee, D. E., Asselbergs, F. W., Bots, M. L., & van der Graaf, R. (2022). How traditional informed consent impairs inclusivity in a learning healthcare system: Lessons learned from the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1, 1-8.
Mahant, V. (2020). Right-to-try experimental drugs: An overview. Journal of Translational Medicine, 18(1), 1-6.
Melvin, H. (2021). Medical ethics: Ethical dilemmas in healthcare. Education Projects Group. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.