The concept of the right to experimental drugs is a controversial issue that has sparked a heated debate between supporters and critics. Providing hope and a chance for recovery to patients who have exhausted all other options is the cause of the argument for allowing access to experimental treatments. However, critics raise concerns about the safety, effectiveness, and ethical implications of using unproven treatments that have not been fully established (Bunnik, 2019). The discussion of this topic requires a careful examination of the risks and benefits of experimental drugs. Informed consent is critical, as patients need to fully understand the potential risks, benefits, and uncertainties of such treatments. Regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Drug Administration, play a critical role in determining the safety and efficacy of treatments (FDA, 2019). But the supporters argue that excessive caution may hinder access to life-saving drugs, while critics maintain that the regulatory process is necessary for ensuring patient safety. The issue of the right to experimental drugs is complex and multifaceted, requiring careful examination and discussion of the ethical considerations involved.

Ethical Theories and Moral Principles

In healthcare, ethical theories and moral principles play a crucial role in guiding decision-making and taking action against healthcare issues. Some of the important ethical theories that are commonly used in healthcare include utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based on their overall consequences and aims to maximize happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people (Vearrier, 2021). Deontological ethics, on the other hand, evaluate actions based on adherence to universal moral rules or duties, regardless of their consequences. Virtue ethics focuses on the development of virtuous character traits and evaluates actions based on how well they align with these traits (Mathúna et al., 2020). In addition to these ethical theories, there are also several moral principles that are commonly used in healthcare. Autonomy is the right of patients to make their own healthcare decisions. Beneficence is the duty of healthcare professionals to act in the best interests of their patients. Non-maleficence is the idea that doctors and nurses have a duty to keep their patients from getting hurt. Justice means that healthcare resources and services are shared out in a fair way (Nandifa et al., 2020).

The application of these ethical theories and moral principles is critical in addressing contemporary issues in healthcare, such as medical confidentiality, informed consent, end-of-life care, and the use of experimental drugs. For instance, in the case of offering unapproved experimental drugs to patients, utilitarianism may consider the potential benefits of the drug for the patient and the community, while deontological ethics may consider the duty to protect the patient from harm and respect their autonomy (Tseng, 2021). Virtue ethics, on the other hand, may consider the development of compassion and empathy towards the patient in decision-making. Overall, a comprehensive and ethical approach to healthcare requires the integration of these ethical theories and moral principles in decision-making and action.

Principle of Informed Consent

The principle of informed consent is especially relevant to experimental drugs because they are still undergoing testing and have not yet been approved for general use. Informed consent is the process of fully informing a patient or research participant about the potential risks and benefits of a medical treatment or research study before they decide to participate. When it comes to experimental drugs, informed consent is particularly important because participants are taking on a greater level of risk than they would with approved treatments (Dankar et al., 2019). 

Participants in clinical trials of experimental drugs must be fully informed about the nature of the drug, its potential benefits, and its potential risks, including any possible side effects. They must also be informed of alternative treatments and the risks associated with not participating in the trial. Informed consent for experimental drugs must also ensure that patients have the cognitive ability to understand the information presented to them and are able to make an informed decision based on that information. Participants must be free to choose whether or not to participate in the trial without coercion or undue influence, and they must be given the opportunity to withdraw their consent at any time during the trial (Varkey, 2021). Overall, informed consent is a critical ethical principle in medical research, especially in the context of experimental drugs, as it ensures that participants are fully informed about the risks and benefits of the treatment and can make an informed decision about whether or not to participate.

Assumptions

Informed consent in experimental drug trials is based on several key assumptions. These include respecting patient autonomy, providing full disclosure of information, patient’s comprehension of the information, voluntary participation, and ongoing consent. It ensures that patients are treated with respect and dignity and can make informed choices about their health and well-being.

Costs and Benefits of Unapproved Experimental Drugs

The issue of offering unapproved experimental drugs to patients is a complex and highly debated topic with valid arguments on both sides. Supporters of offering unapproved drugs argue that it can provide a potentially life-saving treatment option for patients who have exhausted all other options while also encouraging innovation and improving knowledge for the medical community (Feustel et al., 2019). Furthermore, it can offer patients faster access to treatment, which can be critical for those who cannot afford to wait for the approval process.

Though, offering unapproved drugs entails a number of threats. The drugs have not undergone rigorous testing and may have unknown side effects that could be harmful or even life-threatening. Additionally, experimental drugs are still undergoing testing, and their effectiveness may not be proven, leading to patients receiving ineffective treatment. Moreover, offering unapproved drugs raises ethical concerns about the risks and benefits of the treatment and the patient’s right to informed consent (Madeddu et al., 2021). There is also a potential for legal liability for healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, and others involved in providing unapproved drugs.

PHI FPX 3200 Assessment 2 A Right to Experimental Drugs?

Concerning this issue, there are many different perspectives that are in direct opposition to one another. Some argue that offering unapproved experimental drugs is necessary to give patients access to potentially life-saving treatments, while others contend that patient safety should be the top priority and that unapproved drugs should not be offered until they have undergone rigorous testing and been proven safe and effective. Ultimately, the decision to offer unapproved drugs should be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the patient’s individual circumstances, the available evidence, and the advice of medical professionals (Bendicksen et al., 2022). 

Pre-approved Drug Usage for a Wider Patient Pool

The provision of pre-approved drugs to a broader patient population is a controversial subject, with proponents and opponents presenting their respective arguments. Supporters of this method argue that it can help improve patient outcomes and save lives. They suggest that if a medication has been approved for one condition and proven to be safe and effective, extending its use to patients with similar conditions could benefit them (White, 2022). This could also make treatment options more widely available, potentially reducing healthcare costs and the burden on the healthcare system. However, those opposed to this approach have concerns that it could lead to over-medication and unnecessary harm to patients. Critics say that even if a drug is safe and effective for one illness, it may not be for another and that expanding its use to other patients may have negative implications (Heydari et al., 2020). Also, if doctors and nurses rely too much on drugs that have already been approved, they might miss important parts of patient care, like alternative treatments and changes in lifestyle.

It is essential to analyze the consequences of offering a pre-approved drug to a large population, including its impacts on the health of the people, expenditure, and the care quality of patients (Quaranta et al., 2022). Another factor to consider is the ethical implications of this practice. In medical care, autonomy gives rights to the patients to make decisions for themselves, and healthcare workers must respect their decision. However, there may be instances where offering pre-approved drugs to a wider pool of patients is not in their best interest, which could present ethical challenges (Borysowski, 2019). In summary, a balanced approach that prioritizes patient safety and welfare is crucial to making informed decisions about the use of pre-approved drugs for a larger patient pool.

Knowledge Gaps and Missing Information

From the beginning, there have been supporters and critics of the concept of using unapproved drugs. However, addressing the knowledge gaps and missing information can further enhance this concept. Firstly, more research is needed to determine the safety and effectiveness of using pre-approved drugs for conditions other than those for which they were originally approved. Secondly, experimental data is needed, which highlights the consequences of administering a pre-approved drug to a larger population and its impacts on the health and well-being of people (Amrutkar et al., 2022). Thirdly, the ethical implications of using pre-approved drugs for a larger patient pool need to be explored, including patient autonomy, informed consent, and the responsibilities of medical professionals in providing complete and accurate information to patients.

Fourthly, the long-term effects of using pre-approved drugs for a wider range of conditions are not well understood, and more research is necessary to determine whether there are any unintended consequences or long-term risks associated with this practice. Finally, more research is needed to understand which patient populations may be at higher risk for negative outcomes from using pre-approved drugs outside of their approved indications (Cohen et al., 2020). Overall, gathering more data and conducting further research in these areas is essential to inform decisions around the use of pre-approved drugs for a larger patient pool.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the issue of the right to experimental drugs is complex and multifaceted, requiring careful examination of the ethical considerations involved. The application of ethical theories and moral principles, such as informed consent, is critical in addressing contemporary issues in healthcare. While offering unapproved experimental drugs may provide a potentially life-saving treatment option, it also carries significant risks and ethical concerns that need to be carefully considered. Ultimately, the decision to offer unapproved drugs must balance the potential benefits with the risks to patient safety, with regulatory bodies playing a crucial role in determining the safety and efficacy of treatments.

References

Amrutkar, S. S., Patil, S. B., & Mundada, A. S. (2022). Abbreviated new drug submission approval process: An overview. Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector, 174113432211460. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411343221146094 

Bendicksen, L., Kesselheim, A. S., & Rome, B. N. (2022). The vexing voyage of vasopressin. Chest, 162(2), 433–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2022.02.048 

Borysowski, J., & Górski, A. (2019). Compassionate use of unauthorized drugs: Legal regulations and ethical challenges. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 65, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2019.04.008 

Bunnik, E. M., & Aarts, N. (2019). What do patients with unmet medical needs want? A qualitative study of patients’ views and experiences with expanded access to unapproved, investigational treatments in the Netherlands. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0420-8 

Cohen, P. A., Avula, B., Wang, Y. H., Zakharevich, I., & Khan, I. (2020). Five unapproved drugs found in cognitive enhancement supplements. Neurology: Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000960 

Dankar, F. K., Gergely, M., & Dankar, S. K. (2019). Informed consent in biomedical research. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 17, 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2019.03.010 

FDA. (2019). Drugs. Fda.gov. https://www.fda.gov/drugs 

Feustel, A. C., MacPherson, A., Fergusson, D. A., Kieburtz, K., & Kimmelman, J. (2019). Risks and benefits of unapproved disease-modifying treatments for neurodegenerative disease. Neurology, 94(1), e1–e14. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000008699 

Heydari, M., Mehraeen, M., & Joulaei, H. (2020). Over medication and waste of resources in physicians’ prescriptions: A cross sectional study in southwestern Iran. Shiraz E-Medical Journal, 21(9). https://doi.org/10.5812/semj.97662 

Madeddu, C., Neri, M., Sanna, E., Oppi, S., & Macciò, A. (2021). Experimental drugs for chemotherapy- and cancer-related anemia. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology, Volume 13, 593–611. https://doi.org/10.2147/jep.s262349 

Nandifa, V. N. P., Jena, Y., & Joewana, S. (2020). Beneficence is the highest moral imperative of a doctor dealing with the poor quality of patient autonomy. Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education, 9(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.44511 

O’Mathúna, D. P., Escartín, C. P., Roche, P., & Marlowe, J. (2020). Engaging citizen translators in disasters. Translation and Interpreting Studies. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20003.oma 

Quaranta, A., D’Isidoro, O., Piattelli, A., Hui, W. L., & Perrotti, V. (2022). Illegal drugs and periodontal conditions. Periodontology 2000, 90(1), 62–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12450 

PHI FPX 3200 Assessment 2 A Right to Experimental Drugs?

Tseng, P.-E., & Wang, Y.-H. (2021). Deontological or utilitarian? An eternal ethical dilemma in outbreak. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8565. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168565 

Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119 

Vearrier, L., & Henderson, C. M. (2021). Utilitarian principlism as a framework for crisis healthcare ethics. HEC Forum, 33(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-020-09431-7 

White, C. M. (2022). Continued risk of dietary supplements adulterated with approved and unapproved drugs: Assessment of the US food and drug administration’s tainted supplements database 2007 through 2021. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 62(8), 928–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.2046