Right To Try Individualized Treatments
The bill has significant implications for state law as it amends Chapter 90 of the General Statutes to incorporate provisions for individualized treatments. This includes establishing the conditions under which patients can access investigational drugs and protecting healthcare providers from liability when recommending these treatments. Furthermore, it sets up a framework for ensuring informed consent is obtained from eligible patients or their guardians before proceeding with such treatments. As such, it effectively creates a legal avenue for patients seeking alternatives when conventional care is lacking.
Senate Bill 871, titled "Right To Try Individualized Treatments," aims to provide eligible patients the ability to access individualized investigational drugs, biological products, and devices for the treatment of severe illnesses. The bill outlines the specific criteria that patients must meet to qualify for these treatments, including having a life-threatening or severely debilitating illness and having explored all other approved treatment options. The legislation intends to enhance patient autonomy by granting individuals the right to try potentially beneficial but unapproved treatments when traditional options have failed.
The sentiment surrounding S871 appears to be generally positive among patient advocacy groups and supporters of medical freedom, who view the bill as a necessary step towards empowering patients with more control over their treatment options. However, there are concerns among some healthcare professionals regarding the safety and efficacy of unapproved treatments, as well as the potential financial implications for patients who might incur significant out-of-pocket costs. The discussion reflects a fundamental tension between the desire for innovation in treatment options and the need to ensure patient safety.
One notable point of contention is the bill's provision that manufacturers are not required to make individualized drugs available, which critics argue may limit the bill's effectiveness. Additionally, the exclusion of a private right of action against manufacturers could raise questions about accountability if patients experience adverse effects from unapproved treatments. These aspects may provoke debate regarding the balance between promoting access to experimental treatments and ensuring sufficient oversight to protect patients.