(growlery [archaic] a place to retreat to, alone, when ill-humored)
By Phil Riske | Managing Editor
Our arrival into this world wasn’t something we had anything to say about. To make thing even, we should have a say on how we exit.
As voters in the General Election next month, we’ll be asked for a yes or no on Proposition 303, which, if passed, would, simply worded, permit terminally ill patients to try unapproved or experimental drugs or treatments.
Having had a brother who wanted to control how he died, I initially without questioning the “Right to Try.” I still do, but there might be a better answer.
Fifty doctors wrote The Arizona Republic http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2014/10/14/no-prop-303-right-to-try/17270791/ this week in opposition to Prop. 303. Here are a few points they made:
- Few of the experimental drugs (Phase 1) covered by the proposed law would be beneficial.
- Significant harmful side effects could result.
- Families might spend their last dollars on ineffective treatment.
The physicians make valid points but it all comes down to individual choice. Approved treatments for cancer, for example, have plenty of awful side effects. If families choose to spend their savings in an attempt to help a dying loved one, that’s their choice as long as they’re not acting on false promises.
The physicians say a new bill limited to drugs that have passed Phase 2 trials may be a model to consider. Good suggestion.
If voters pass 303, it would be prudent to figure out a way to improve the lives of terminal patients, such as permitting drugs that have been found to have some efficacy.
If voters reject 303, they are telling their neighbor—themselves—government still has authority over the last moments of their lives.
But, as Republic columnist E.J. Montini put it: Prop. 303 isn’t about politics. It’s about hope.
