The first US hub for experimental medical treatments is coming

Can’t say I endorse the development, but I do find it interesting…

A bill that allows medical clinics to sell unproven treatments has been passed in Montana.

Under the legislation, doctors can apply for a license to open an experimental treatment clinic and recommend and sell therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to their patients. Once it’s signed by the governor, the law will be the most expansive in the country in allowing access to drugs that have not been fully tested.

The bill allows for any drug produced in the state to be sold in it, providing it has been through phase I clinical trials—the initial, generally small, first-in-human studies that are designed to check that a new treatment is not harmful. These trials do not determine if the drug is effective.

The bill, which was passed by the state legislature on April 29 and is expected to be signed by Governor Greg Gianforte, essentially expands on existing Right to Try legislation in the state. But while that law was originally designed to allow terminally ill people to access experimental drugs, the new bill was drafted and lobbied for by people interested in extending human lifespans—a group of longevity enthusiasts that includes scientists, libertarians, and influencers.

These longevity enthusiasts are hoping Montana will serve as a test bed for opening up access to experimental drugs. “I see no reason why it couldn’t be adopted by most of the other states,” said Todd White, speaking to an audience of policymakers and others interested in longevity at an event late last month in Washington, DC. White, who helped develop the bill and directs a research organization focused on aging, added that “there are some things that can be done at the federal level to allow Right to Try laws to proliferate more readily.”

Supporters of the bill say it gives individuals the freedom to make choices about their own bodies. At the same event, bioethicist Jessica Flanigan of the University of Richmond said she was “optimistic” about the measure, because “it’s great any time anybody is trying to give people back their medical autonomy.”

Ultimately, they hope that the new law will enable people to try unproven drugs that might help them live longer, make it easier for Americans to try experimental treatments without having to travel abroad, and potentially turn Montana into a medical tourism hub.

But ethicists and legal scholars aren’t as optimistic. “I hate it,” bioethicist Alison Bateman-House of New York University says of the bill. She and others are worried about the ethics of promoting and selling unproven treatments—and the risks of harm should something go wrong.

5 Likes

What is the worst case scenario of some 80 year old trying an unproven longevity treatment? Death.
What is the best case scenario of some 80 year old doing nothing? Death.
Ethicists should go annoy someone else.

8 Likes

Calling yourself a bioethicist really is a different level of pretentiousness.

4 Likes

I’m very much in favor of ‘right to try’ and medical autonomy, in general. That said, there will probably be as many 30 yr olds wanting to try a plethora of therapies as 80 yr olds. We are in the age of optimization and biohacking, after all. The risk/ben analysis may be very different for them and for their doctors and I wonder how that will play out if something goes wrong.

1 Like

This should be the standard everywhere. Owning your own body and doing with it what you want as long as you don’t harm others is the most basic freedom you could have. I find it ironic to see many Americans being so proud of their “freedom” when they don’t even get to decide what to put in their own mouth.

2 Likes

My main concern is the part about ‘as long as it does not hurt others’ because the US is a highly litigious environment. If a patient demands Rapamycin from their doctor, but later is harmed, the doctor may lose a lawsuit. The doctor may have followed the principle of patient autonomy, but not the established standard of care. This is where it seems challenging in our system, unless we just allow patients to access any/all meds on their own and assume the consequences.

1 Like

True, but I think there should be better ways to abolish that responsibility. Like if a patient signs a document stating that he takes full responsibility and that the doctor cannot be sued, then that should be fine. If that’s not enough then the laws are messesd up.

Unfortunately, ppl are not raised with the idea that they have a choice to live healthier and longer life. They just go with the flow. Bad habits are widely promoted and peer pressure to be like everybody else is overwhelming. Starts in childhood. I lose my sleep when I think about what my 7 year old granddaughter is fed for lunch in her school every day.

1 Like

There needs to be a form of contract which enable people to do things at their own risk, but the words should be on the front in large font and by the signature. No claims should be part of marketing.

2 Likes