# Right To Try law? Good or bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 31, 2018, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221 "2018-05-31T20:15:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2018, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/61 "2018-06-02T18:42:03Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > They are. Yes, I know. I am responding to a hypothetical. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/62 "2018-06-03T19:17:02Z")
Probably not a good idea. If there is a medicine that might really help, getting it was easy before the law. The FDA readily approved such use, sometimes over the phone in an emergency. But it eliminates a step or two, which reduces the criticism of the FDA which is a good thing. So, on balance, probably not, but it does help some. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/63 "2018-06-04T05:51:07Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The bill doesn’t say anything about Phase I trial drugs being safe. I’m glad you’re so worried that someone about to die might die as a result of taking such a drug. We can’t let that happen. We have to let them die from not taking a drug No, what we have to do, ethically speaking, is **let terminally ill people die from their terminal disease _without_ turning their disease into an economic perverse incentive that will harm ill people in general**. Drug developers seeking FDA trials/approval need to have their financial incentives firmly attached to the goal of making drugs that are highly likely to **work**. If their profits depend on their figuring out how to make effective safe drugs that survive the rigors of FDA trials, that’s in the best interests of patients in the long run. What you are proposing is to replace that financial incentive with one attached to the goal of making ineffective drugs that they can fool desperate terminally ill laymen into thinking are worth paying a lot of money for. Since that goal is a hell of a lot easier to attain than the goal of making effective safe drugs that can earn FDA approval, profit-conscious drug development firms will naturally be more attracted to it. We should not be using the desperation of terminally ill patients as bait to **encourage** pharmaceutical manufacturers to move into the snake-oil business. If they or anybody else wants to make a quick buck off of scamming the terminally ill with worthless “miracle cures”, they can go find their level among the homeopaths and aura adjusters and crystal healers and all the rest of the quacks peddling unlicensed bullshit to the traumatized and gullible. There is no reason whatsoever that we should try to make such activities more attractive than they already are by associating them with the medical prestige of FDA approval, even to a limited extent. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/64 "2018-06-04T06:37:29Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No, what we have to do, ethically speaking, is **let terminally ill people die from their terminal disease _without_ turning their disease into an economic perverse incentive that will harm ill people in general**. > > Drug developers seeking FDA trials/approval need to have their financial incentives firmly attached to the goal of making drugs that are highly likely to **work**. If their profits depend on their figuring out how to make effective safe drugs that survive the rigors of FDA trials, that’s in the best interests of patients in the long run. > > What you are proposing is to replace that financial incentive with one attached to the goal of making ineffective drugs that they can fool desperate terminally ill laymen into thinking are worth paying a lot of money for. Since that goal is a hell of a lot easier to attain than the goal of making effective safe drugs that can earn FDA approval, profit-conscious drug development firms will naturally be more attracted to it. > > We should not be using the desperation of terminally ill patients as bait to **encourage** pharmaceutical manufacturers to move into the snake-oil business. If they or anybody else wants to make a quick buck off of scamming the terminally ill with worthless “miracle cures”, they can go find their level among the homeopaths and aura adjusters and crystal healers and all the rest of the quacks peddling unlicensed bullshit to the traumatized and gullible. > > There is no reason whatsoever that we should try to make such activities more attractive than they already are by associating them with the medical prestige of FDA approval, even to a limited extent. This is CT nonsense. Drug companies can’t make huge profits, maybe no profits at all from the rare tragic situations where some treatment in development would be applicable. The situation is quite the opposite, no company wants to take the risk of one of these treatments failing, the likely outcome when an untested cure is attempted with someone so ill as to qualify for this law. The other end of the seesaw are the phony supplement hucksters who don’t submit their products for approval in the first place and wouldn’t qualify under this bill. The worst result of this bill would be that it does nothing. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/65 "2018-06-04T12:53:42Z")
The worst result of the bill would be if it adds to the harms for terminally ill people and their families while undercutting the FDA. The best result of the bill is if it does nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/66 "2018-06-04T13:16:43Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > This is CT nonsense. Drug companies can’t make huge profits, maybe no profits at all from the rare tragic situations where some treatment in development would be applicable. The situation is quite the opposite, no company wants to take the risk of one of these treatments failing, the likely outcome when an untested cure is attempted with someone so ill as to qualify for this law. The other end of the seesaw are the phony supplement hucksters who don’t submit their products for approval in the first place and wouldn’t qualify under this bill. The worst result of this bill would be that it does nothing. Your viewpoint reflects a failure of imagination to see how this provision can be abused. **wonky** is right. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/67 "2018-06-04T13:32:34Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > Your viewpoint reflects a failure of imagination to see how this provision can be abused. **wonky** is right. Your argument is self-contradictory. It is based on the idea that the FDA is allowing these abuses which would justify the bill. But those things are only in your imagination and not in the bill. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/68 "2018-06-04T14:18:58Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > This is CT nonsense. Drug companies can’t make huge profits, maybe no profits at all from the rare tragic situations where some treatment in development would be applicable. Nobody’s suggesting that they can. The point that you seem to be consistently missing is that drug companies **can** make huge profits from the partial development of treatments that **aren’t** effectively applicable to terminal illnesses **but look hopeful enough to be successfully marketed to terminally ill patients**. Recognizing that for-profit entities have a powerful incentive to pursue marketing over research if marketing initiatives become more profitable than research ones is not a “conspiracy theory”. It’s simply economic realism. > [@TriPolar](#): > > The situation is quite the opposite, no company wants to take the risk of one of these treatments failing, the likely outcome when an untested cure is attempted with someone so ill as to qualify for this law. The naivety of this attitude beggars belief. Of course companies will be happy to take the risk of one of their treatments failing if they will make money off the failure anyway, and are shielded from legal liability for the failure. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/69 "2018-06-04T14:33:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nobody’s suggesting that they can. The point that you seem to be consistently missing is that drug companies **can** make huge profits from the partial development of treatments that **aren’t** effectively applicable to terminal illnesses **but look hopeful enough to be successfully marketed to terminally ill patients**. > > Recognizing that for-profit entities have a powerful incentive to pursue marketing over research if marketing initiatives become more profitable than research ones is not a “conspiracy theory”. It’s simply economic realism. > > The naivety of this attitude beggars belief. Of course companies will be happy to take the risk of one of their treatments failing if they will make money off the failure anyway, and are shielded from legal liability for the failure. Your argument makes no sense. This does not allow companies to market treatments in development. I don’t think they should be allowed to market any treatments, but that is not part of this bill at all, and a real problem the FDA doesn’t feel like addressing. They will shielded from legal liablility, as they should be, but they have no chance of making a profit from the early experimental use of treatments in development that would apply to a tiny amount of people. It is still up to the FDA to approve these new treatments based on scientific evidence before they can be openly marketed, and that is something they do a piss poor job of already. I have no idea where you and others are getting these ideas from, but they don’t come from any reasonable interpretation of the bill. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/70 "2018-06-04T14:38:56Z")
> [@LAZombie](#): > > The FDA is as corrupt and incompetent as any other government agency. In a another thread, I noted how the 60 year old topical creme tretinoin widely known as Retin-A used to fight acne and wrinkles is OTC in other countries and costs one tenth of what it costs in the United States. There is no legitimate reason for this drug to be prescription only other than to fatten Big Pharma profits. Couldn’t “big pharma” make just as much money, if not more, by making it easier to buy? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221/71 "2018-06-04T15:36:33Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Couldn’t “big pharma” make just as much money, if not more, by making it easier to buy? I don’t know what the patent situation with this is but if it was available OTC in the US then there could be a lot of competition which drives the price down and reduced the potential profit for the existing suppliers as a restricted product. It is highly profitable for the drug companies now, greater than 90% profit per sale if it is already available for 10% of the price elsewhere. No one gives up that kind of profit for for simply the potential to sell 10 times as much in a more competitive market. Even if they can maintain patent rights and not face competition there’s still no guarantee they can sell more at the current price and would have to gamble on the ability to increase sales at lower prices while maintaining profitability. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-try-law-good-or-bad/815221.md?page=3)