Skip Navigation



British Medical Bulletin Advance Access published online on December 3, 2008

British Medical Bulletin, doi:10.1093/bmb/ldn048
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
89/1/7    most recent
ldn048v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schüklenk, U.
Right arrow Articles by Lowry, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schüklenk, U.
Right arrow Articles by Lowry, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: reviewing the ethical arguments

Udo Schüklenk* and Christopher Lowry

Department of Philosophy, Queen's University Kingston, Watson Hall 308, ON, Canada

* Correspondence to: Udo Schüklenk Department of Philosophy Queen's University Kingston, Watson Hall 308, ON, Canada E-mail: udo.schuklenk{at}gmail.com

Background: The advent of AIDS brought about a group of patients unwilling to accept crucial aspects of the methodological standards for clinical research investigating Phase 1 drugs, surgeries or devices. Their arguments against placebo controls in trials, which depended—at the time—on the terminal status of patient volunteers led to a renewed discussion of the ethics of denying patients with catastrophic illnesses access to last-chance experimental drugs, surgeries or devices.

Sources of data: Existing ethics and health policy literature on the topic of access to experimental drugs.

Areas of agreement: The positions of those arguing for or against free access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients are irreconcilable.

Areas of controversy: At stake are questions about the kinds of personal sacrifices society can reasonably expect patients in clinical trials to make to ensure statistically predictive results. These would benefit by necessity a much larger number of current and future patients—the conflict is about individual versus public interests. It is also about the question of whether or not the state can legitimately prevent patients with terminal illnesses from unfettered access to experimental drugs, surgeries or devices in order to motivate them to participate in clinical trials. We review the ethical arguments for and against the provision of access to Phase 1 agents for terminally ill patients.

Growing points: Finding a compromise between providing free or no access to Phase 1 drugs for terminally ill patients.

Areas timely for developing research: We ought to investigate means to increase access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients without sacrificing necessary clinical trials' sounds scientific methods.

Keywords: terminal illness • access to experimental drugs • phase 1 trial • research ethics • liberalism, paternalism • therapeutic misconception • HIV • AIDS • PWA

Accepted for publication November 15, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.