 |
| Credit: Charles Williams, Flickr |
Renowned consumer advocate Sarah Walsh is proposing new legislation that would ensure terminally ill patients can die in peace without any possibility of getting better.*
The move comes as a reaction against the surge of so-called “right to try” laws. This type of legislation has become law in several US states, and the US Senate just passed its own version of the “right to try” legislation, marking the first time such bills have found success at the national level.
Officially, the goal of “right to try” legislation is to allow certain terminally ill patients to try out experimental treatments before they have been approved as safe by the FDA. But, according to Walsh, the real purpose of the bills is to wage a backdoor assault on the integrity of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is already in a perilous condition.
Perhaps even more concerning, the bills risk giving patients false hope that they could actually get better and extend their lives. In most cases, this will lead to far greater disappointment for loved ones and family members, who will see their expectations raised and dashed. “This is the type of tragedy the FDA bureaucracy works very hard to prevent by keeping expectations as low as possible,” Walsh told The Daily Face Palm.
In a small subset of cases, Walsh acknowledged the experimental treatments actually work. But this only causes more problems because it establishes what Walsh calls a “two-tiered healthcare system”.
“Every other American has to spend years languishing away, suffering under treatable illnesses while more effective and affordable drugs meander through the years-long FDA approval process,” Walsh explained. “But then, ‘right to try’ comes along and suddenly these lucky people with terminal diseases get access to treatments early. It’s totally unfair.”
Fortunately, Walsh’s Right to Die Hopeless Act promises to prevent these problems by once again ensuring that all Americans are equally harmed by the labyrinthine FDA bureaucracy and have no distressing hope for redress.
*This is a satirical post. The individual and quotes cited above are fictitious. Unfortunately, they did not require as much embellishment as one might hope. Actual self-styled consumer advocates really have come out against right to try legislation on the grounds of preventing false hope and protecting the FDA, as noted in this NY Times article.
Officially, the goal of “right to try” legislation is to allow certain terminally ill patients to try out experimental treatments before they have been approved as safe by the FDA. But, according to Walsh, the real purpose of the bills is to wage a backdoor assault on the integrity of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is already in a perilous condition.
Perhaps even more concerning, the bills risk giving patients false hope that they could actually get better and extend their lives. In most cases, this will lead to far greater disappointment for loved ones and family members, who will see their expectations raised and dashed. “This is the type of tragedy the FDA bureaucracy works very hard to prevent by keeping expectations as low as possible,” Walsh told The Daily Face Palm.
In a small subset of cases, Walsh acknowledged the experimental treatments actually work. But this only causes more problems because it establishes what Walsh calls a “two-tiered healthcare system”.
“Every other American has to spend years languishing away, suffering under treatable illnesses while more effective and affordable drugs meander through the years-long FDA approval process,” Walsh explained. “But then, ‘right to try’ comes along and suddenly these lucky people with terminal diseases get access to treatments early. It’s totally unfair.”
Fortunately, Walsh’s Right to Die Hopeless Act promises to prevent these problems by once again ensuring that all Americans are equally harmed by the labyrinthine FDA bureaucracy and have no distressing hope for redress.
*This is a satirical post. The individual and quotes cited above are fictitious. Unfortunately, they did not require as much embellishment as one might hope. Actual self-styled consumer advocates really have come out against right to try legislation on the grounds of preventing false hope and protecting the FDA, as noted in this NY Times article.
No comments:
Post a Comment