Policy‐makers, bioethicists, and patient advocates have been engaged in a fierce battle about the merits and potential harms of a federal right‐to‐try law. This debate about access to investigational medical products has raised profound questions about the limits of patient autonomy, appropriate government regulation, medical paternalism, and political rhetoric. For example, do patients have a right to access investigational therapies, as the right‐to‐try movement asserts? What is government’s proper role in regulating and facilitating access to drugs that are still in (...) development? In this review, we analyze the history of the right‐to‐try movement, review the arguments put forth by supporters and opponents of the legislation, and consider the movement’s consequences. Two possible scenarios may emerge. One is that the right‐to‐try pathway may fail to meaningfully increase patient access to investigational products. Alternatively, certain companies may attempt to rely on the federal right‐to‐try legislation to sell investigational products, taking advantage of the provision that allows for direct costs, as there is currently no clear mechanism for enforcement or monitoring of cost calculations. (shrink)

The parents of Charlie Gard, who was born August 4, 2016, with an exceedingly rare and incurable disease called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, fought a prolonged and heated legal battle to allow him access to experimental treatment that they hoped would prolong his life and to prevent his doctors from withdrawing life-sustaining care. Charlie's clinicians at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London believed that the brain damage Charlie had suffered as a result of frequent epileptic seizures, along with many (...) other severe disabilities, would render any innovative therapy futile, and they disagreed with his parents’ wishes to use an experimental therapy. They felt it in Charlie's best interest that he be allowed to die. A battle ensued among Charlie's parents, his doctors, and a guardian who had been appointed to represent him that drew the attention of politicians and prominent persons from all over the world. The case was much in the news over the past year, but it has also been frequently misunderstood. (shrink)

As more young people feel safe to outwardly identify as transgender or gender expansive (TGE), meaning that their gender identity does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth, an increasing number of youth who identify as TGE seek gender-affirming medical care (GAMC). GAMC raises a number of ethical questions, such as the capacity of a minor to assent or consent, the role of parents or legal guardians in decisions about treatment, and implications for equitable access to care (...) when differing parental or custodial viewpoints are present. These questions are further complicated by the difficulties in explaining the limits of long-term research in GAMC, with regard to the preservation of fertility, for example. We present two de-identified composite case studies to highlight dilemmas that may arise and offer recommendations to better support patient- and family-centered decision making for GAMC. These include employing a multidisciplinUniverary shared decision-making approach, disentangling informed consent and assent from chronological age, developing a consistent approach to the assessment of decisional capacity, and developing age-appropriate informational materials. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 6, June 2019, Page 22-25.