Memorializes the United States Congress to pass the Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act of 2017
Impact
If passed, HCR18 would align state laws with the principles set forth in the Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act, which seeks to enhance access to potentially life-saving treatments for terminally ill patients. This could have significant implications for existing healthcare regulations, affirming a patient’s right to seek experimental therapies. Supporting the resolution indicates a push towards more patient-centered approaches and potentially reduces the waiting time for patients needing urgent care while still ensuring safety through a framework based on clinical trial data.
Summary
House Concurrent Resolution 18 (HCR18) memorializes the United States Congress to pass the Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act of 2017. This bill aims to allow terminally ill patients access to investigational drugs, biological products, and devices that have completed the first phase of a clinical trial but have not yet received full approval from the FDA. HCR18 emphasizes the right of patients and their physicians to make choices regarding their treatments without government interference, thus prioritizing patient autonomy in critical healthcare decisions.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HCR18 has been generally positive among those who advocate for patient rights and the ability to access investigational treatments. Proponents argue that it empowers patients in dire situations, fostering hope and offering alternative treatment paths when conventional therapies fail. However, there may be concerns from healthcare professionals and regulatory bodies about ensuring patient safety and the consequences of allowing broader access to unapproved treatments, creating a complex dialogue about the ethics of such legislative measures.
Contention
Notable points of contention include potential conflicts with federal regulations and the responsibilities of healthcare providers in managing patient care. Critics of such measures highlight the risks associated with using investigational drugs not yet fully vetted by the FDA, raising concerns about the ramifications of offering potentially unsafe treatments. The ongoing debate emphasizes the balance between patient autonomy and the need for robust regulatory protections in ensuring patient safety.