Re: Drugs backed for the terminally ill

[Guest guest]

Hey, : Glad to see your back. Okay,now. This particular news article confuses me. Are we able to get drugs that have not yet be approved? Or are we not able to get drugs that haven't been approved? Barb in KY wrote: Drugs backed for the terminally illCourt affirms access to unapproved drugsBloomberg NewsPublished May 3, 2006WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.An advocacy group for the terminally ill

sued the Food and Drug Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own body, including a right to self-preservation."As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary measures not otherwise justified," Judge Judith wrote for the divided three-judge panel. "Barring a terminally ill patient from the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this right of self-preservation."Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing "the majority's approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and medicine." He said the ruling is contrary to

the "expressed will" of Congress and the president.Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I, drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80 patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger groups for effectiveness and safety.The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III trials have access to such treatments.In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of new drugs was recent compared with the "ancient principles" of self-preservation. The court further cited earlier court

decisions holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment."The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of taking a medication that might prolong her life," wrote.The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs after Phase I testing.An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's response.

Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase

[Guest guest]

Confused me to. It goes to lower court to be reviewed. So can't get drugs yet but it is a start P Barbara Soice wrote: Hey, : Glad to see your back. Okay,now. This particular news article confuses me. Are we able to get drugs that have not yet be approved? Or are we not able to get drugs that haven't been approved? Barb in KY wrote: Drugs backed for the terminally illCourt affirms access to unapproved

drugsBloomberg NewsPublished May 3, 2006WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own body, including a right to self-preservation."As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary measures not otherwise justified," Judge Judith wrote for the divided three-judge panel. "Barring

a terminally ill patient from the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this right of self-preservation."Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing "the majority's approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and medicine." He said the ruling is contrary to the "expressed will" of Congress and the president.Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I, drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80 patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger groups for effectiveness and safety.The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the

first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III trials have access to such treatments.In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of new drugs was recent compared with the "ancient principles" of self-preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment."The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of taking a medication that might prolong her life," wrote.The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs after Phase I testing.An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's

response. Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase

New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[Guest guest]

Barb, Be sure to read carefully the article on the oximeter. How many patches do you have on today ??? lol

You CAN do this. Walk a lot. God Bless. Peggy

on 5/4/06 11:51 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote:

Hey, : Glad to see your back. Okay,now. This particular news article confuses me. Are we able to get drugs that have not yet be approved? Or are we not able to get drugs that haven't been approved?

Barb in KY

wrote:

Drugs backed for the terminally ill

Court affirms access to unapproved drugs

Bloomberg News

Published May 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to

potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full

government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug

Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that

had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court

upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.

A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's

decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own

body, including a right to self-preservation.

" As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a

person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary

measures not otherwise justified, " Judge Judith wrote for the

divided three-judge panel. " Barring a terminally ill patient from

the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this

right of self-preservation. "

Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing " the majority's

approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and

medicine. " He said the ruling is contrary to the " expressed will " of

Congress and the president.

Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed

to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I,

drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80

patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger

groups for effectiveness and safety.

The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which

is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process

takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients

to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the

first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III

trials have access to such treatments.

In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of

new drugs was recent compared with the " ancient principles " of self-

preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions

holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially

life-saving medical treatment.

" The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to

decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of

taking a medication that might prolong her life, " wrote.

The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine

whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government

interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs

after Phase I testing.

An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's

response.

Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase <http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFpMnJnZ3IxBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHNlYwNtYWlsLXRhZ2xpbmVzBHNsawNmYXJlY2hhc2UtMDQyNzA2>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Peggy. I am hanging in there. When I go to bed tonight, I will have successfully made it two days. Yipeeeee Barb in KyPeggy wrote: Barb, Be sure to read carefully the article on the oximeter. How many patches do you have on today ??? lolYou CAN do this. Walk a lot. God Bless. Peggyon 5/4/06 11:51 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote: Hey, : Glad to see your back. Okay,now. This particular news article confuses me. Are we able to get drugs that have not yet be approved? Or are we not able to get drugs that haven't been approved? Barb in KY wrote: Drugs backed for the terminally illCourt affirms access to unapproved drugsBloomberg NewsPublished May 3, 2006WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own body, including a right to self-preservation."As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a person is faced with death, necessity often

warrants extraordinary measures not otherwise justified," Judge Judith wrote for the divided three-judge panel. "Barring a terminally ill patient from the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this right of self-preservation."Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing "the majority's approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and medicine." He said the ruling is contrary to the "expressed will" of Congress and the president.Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I, drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80 patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger groups for effectiveness and safety.The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process

takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III trials have access to such treatments.In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of new drugs was recent compared with the "ancient principles" of self-preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment."The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of taking a medication that might prolong her life," wrote.The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the

drugs after Phase I testing.An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's response. Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase <http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFpMnJnZ3IxBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHNlYwNtYWlsLXRhZ2xpbmVzBHNsawNmYXJlY2hhc2UtMDQyNzA2>

[Guest guest]

Hey, Peggy: What article on the oxymeter are you talking about. I haven't seen one. Can you give me the link to get to that article? Barb in KYPeggy wrote: Barb, Be sure to read carefully the article on the oximeter. How many patches do you have on today ??? lolYou CAN do this. Walk a lot. God Bless. Peggyon 5/4/06 11:51 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote: Hey, : Glad to see your back. Okay,now. This particular news article confuses me. Are we able to get drugs that have not yet be approved? Or are we not able to get drugs that haven't been approved? Barb in KY wrote: Drugs backed for the terminally illCourt affirms access to unapproved drugsBloomberg NewsPublished May 3, 2006WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own body, including a right to self-preservation."As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a person is faced with death, necessity often

warrants extraordinary measures not otherwise justified," Judge Judith wrote for the divided three-judge panel. "Barring a terminally ill patient from the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this right of self-preservation."Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing "the majority's approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and medicine." He said the ruling is contrary to the "expressed will" of Congress and the president.Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I, drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80 patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger groups for effectiveness and safety.The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process

takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III trials have access to such treatments.In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of new drugs was recent compared with the "ancient principles" of self-preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment."The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of taking a medication that might prolong her life," wrote.The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the

drugs after Phase I testing.An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's response. Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase <http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFpMnJnZ3IxBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHNlYwNtYWlsLXRhZ2xpbmVzBHNsawNmYXJlY2hhc2UtMDQyNzA2>

[Guest guest]

on 5/12/06 3:18 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote:

Barb, It was an article P posted I think. P did you post that??

I remember reading that if you have a cig and use the oximeter it will not

be an accurate reading. Cold hands, moving around, so many things effect the reading.

Several things you need to read. Maybe we can find it in the past posts.

I have kids coming soon but I will try to find it. Leanne may have it.!!!!

God Bless... Peggy

Hey, Peggy: What article on the oxymeter are you talking about. I haven't seen one. Can you give me the link to get to that article?

Barb in KY

Peggy wrote:

Barb, Be sure to read carefully the article on the oximeter. How many patches do you have on today ??? lol

You CAN do this. Walk a lot. God Bless. Peggy

on 5/4/06 11:51 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote:

Hey, : Glad to see your back. Okay,now. This particular news article confuses me. Are we able to get drugs that have not yet be approved? Or are we not able to get drugs that haven't been approved?

Barb in KY

wrote:

Drugs backed for the terminally ill

Court affirms access to unapproved drugs

Bloomberg News

Published May 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to

potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full

government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug

Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that

had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court

upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.

A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's

decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own

body, including a right to self-preservation.

" As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a

person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary

measures not otherwise justified, " Judge Judith wrote for the

divided three-judge panel. " Barring a terminally ill patient from

the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this

right of self-preservation. "

Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing " the majority's

approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and

medicine. " He said the ruling is contrary to the " expressed will " of

Congress and the president.

Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed

to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I,

drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80

patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger

groups for effectiveness and safety.

The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which

is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process

takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients

to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the

first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III

trials have access to such treatments.

In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of

new drugs was recent compared with the " ancient principles " of self-

preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions

holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially

life-saving medical treatment.

" The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to

decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of

taking a medication that might prolong her life, " wrote.

The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine

whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government

interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs

after Phase I testing.

An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's

response.

Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase <http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFpMnJnZ3IxBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHNlYwNtYWlsLXRhZ2xpbmVzBHNsawNmYXJlY2hhc2UtMDQyNzA2>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Peggy. Barb in KYPeggy wrote: on 5/12/06 3:18 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote:Barb, It was an article P posted I think. P did you post that?? I remember reading that if you have a cig and use the oximeter it will not be an accurate reading. Cold hands, moving around, so many things effect the reading.Several things you need to read. Maybe we can find it in the past posts.I have kids coming soon but I will try to find it. Leanne may have it.!!!!God Bless... Peggy Hey, Peggy: What article on the oxymeter are you talking about. I haven't seen one. Can you give me the link to get to that article? Barb in KYPeggy

wrote: Barb, Be sure to read carefully the article on the oximeter. How many patches do you have on today ??? lolYou CAN do this. Walk a lot. God Bless. Peggyon 5/4/06 11:51 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote: Hey, : Glad to see your back. Okay,now. This particular news article confuses me. Are we able to get drugs that have not yet be approved? Or are we not able to get drugs that haven't been approved?Barb in KY wrote: Drugs backed for the terminally illCourt affirms access to unapproved drugsBloomberg NewsPublished May 3, 2006WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to potentially life-saving new drugs

that haven't received full government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own body, including a right to self-preservation."As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary measures not otherwise justified," Judge Judith wrote for the divided three-judge panel. "Barring a terminally ill patient from the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this right of self-preservation."Judge Bell Griffith

dissented, arguing "the majority's approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and medicine." He said the ruling is contrary to the "expressed will" of Congress and the president.Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I, drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80 patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger groups for effectiveness and safety.The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III trials have access to such treatments.In its ruling the appeals court said that

government regulation of new drugs was recent compared with the "ancient principles" of self-preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment."The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of taking a medication that might prolong her life," wrote.The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs after Phase I testing.An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's response. Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase

<http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFpMnJnZ3IxBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHNlYwNtYWlsLXRhZ2xpbmVzBHNsawNmYXJlY2hhc2UtMDQyNzA2>

[Guest guest]

,

I thank you so much for sending this post out on May 3. I was just finishing my appeal and included this information. I believe it made a difference! I did recieve coverage for the prescription...have been working over 4 months on this.

This information should be saved by everyone. It is a decision that we may need again in the course of our quest for treatment options. I wonder how this would affect the drugs that are now being developed for PF? This decision is worded to make me believe that we could not be denied these drugs....that it is our right to take the chance. What do you think? > "As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a > person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary > measures not otherwise justified," Judge Judith wrote for the > divided three-judge panel. "Barring a terminally ill patient from > the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this > right of self-preservation

Thanks again, . Your search for links and information is invaluable to us!

Many hugs to you!!

Joyce PF 1997

>> > > Drugs backed for the terminally ill> Court affirms access to unapproved drugs> > Bloomberg News> Published May 3, 2006> > > WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to > potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full > government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.> > An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug > Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that > had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court > upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.> > A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's > decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own > body, including a right to self-preservation.> > "As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a > person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary > measures not otherwise justified," Judge Judith wrote for the > divided three-judge panel. "Barring a terminally ill patient from > the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this > right of self-preservation."> > Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing "the majority's > approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and > medicine." He said the ruling is contrary to the "expressed will" of > Congress and the president.> > Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed > to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I, > drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80 > patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger > groups for effectiveness and safety.> > The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which > is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process > takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients > to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the > first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III > trials have access to such treatments.> > In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of > new drugs was recent compared with the "ancient principles" of self-> preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions > holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially > life-saving medical treatment.> > "The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to > decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of > taking a medication that might prolong her life," wrote.> > The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine > whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government > interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs > after Phase I testing.> > An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's > response.> > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------> Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.>

[Guest guest]

you are wonderful. What would we do without you..God Bless you for all you do for this group. Peggy

on 5/12/06 7:33 PM, janne5303 at joycedalton29@... wrote:

Joyce PF 1997

>

>

>

> Drugs backed for the terminally ill

> Court affirms access to unapproved drugs

>

> Bloomberg News

> Published May 3, 2006

>

>

> WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to

> potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full

> government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

>

> An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug

> Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that

> had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court

> upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.

>

> A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's

> decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own

> body, including a right to self-preservation.

>

> " As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a

> person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary

> measures not otherwise justified, " Judge Judith wrote for the

> divided three-judge panel. " Barring a terminally ill patient from

> the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this

> right of self-preservation. "

>

> Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing " the majority's

> approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and

> medicine. " He said the ruling is contrary to the " expressed will " of

> Congress and the president.

>

> Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed

> to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I,

> drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80

> patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger

> groups for effectiveness and safety.

>

> The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which

> is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process

> takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients

> to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the

> first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III

> trials have access to such treatments.

>

> In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of

> new drugs was recent compared with the " ancient principles " of self-

> preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions

> holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially

> life-saving medical treatment.

>

> " The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to

> decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of

> taking a medication that might prolong her life, " wrote.

>

> The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine

> whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government

> interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs

> after Phase I testing.

>

> An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's

> response.

[Guest guest]

Hi Barbara sorry to but in. check out message 2398 on oximeters P UIP 8/00Barbara Soice wrote: Hey, Peggy: What article on the oxymeter are you talking about. I haven't seen one. Can you give me the link to get to that article? Barb in KYPeggy wrote: Barb, Be sure to read carefully the article on the oximeter. How many patches do you have on today ??? lolYou CAN do this. Walk a lot. God Bless. Peggyon 5/4/06 11:51 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote: Hey, : Glad to see your back. Okay,now. This particular news

article confuses me. Are we able to get drugs that have not yet be approved? Or are we not able to get drugs that haven't been approved? Barb in KY wrote: Drugs backed for the terminally illCourt affirms access to unapproved drugsBloomberg NewsPublished May 3, 2006WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.A federal appeals court in Washington,

overturning the lower court's decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own body, including a right to self-preservation."As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary measures not otherwise justified," Judge Judith wrote for the divided three-judge panel. "Barring a terminally ill patient from the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this right of self-preservation."Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing "the majority's approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and medicine." He said the ruling is contrary to the "expressed will" of Congress and the president.Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I, drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20

to 80 patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger groups for effectiveness and safety.The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III trials have access to such treatments.In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of new drugs was recent compared with the "ancient principles" of self-preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment."The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of

taking a medication that might prolong her life," wrote.The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs after Phase I testing.An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's response. Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase <http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFpMnJnZ3IxBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHNlYwNtYWlsLXRhZ2xpbmVzBHNsawNmYXJlY2hhc2UtMDQyNzA2>

[Guest guest]

P here it was messagge # 2398 P uip 8/00Barbara Soice wrote: Thanks, Peggy. Barb in KYPeggy wrote: on 5/12/06 3:18 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote:Barb, It was an article P posted I think. P did you post that?? I remember reading that if you have a cig and use the oximeter it will not be an accurate reading. Cold hands, moving around, so many things effect the reading.Several things you need to read. Maybe we can find it in the past posts.I have kids coming soon but I will try to find it. Leanne may have it.!!!!God Bless... Peggy Hey, Peggy: What article on the oxymeter are you talking about. I haven't seen one. Can you give me the link to get to that article? Barb in KYPeggy wrote: Barb, Be sure to read carefully the article on the oximeter. How many patches do you have on today ??? lolYou CAN do this. Walk a lot. God Bless. Peggyon 5/4/06 11:51 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote: Hey, : Glad to see your back. Okay,now. This particular news article confuses me. Are we able to get drugs that have not yet be approved? Or are we not able to get drugs that haven't been approved?Barb in KY wrote: Drugs

backed for the terminally illCourt affirms access to unapproved drugsBloomberg NewsPublished May 3, 2006WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own body, including a right to self-preservation."As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary measures not otherwise justified," Judge

Judith wrote for the divided three-judge panel. "Barring a terminally ill patient from the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this right of self-preservation."Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing "the majority's approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and medicine." He said the ruling is contrary to the "expressed will" of Congress and the president.Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I, drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80 patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger groups for effectiveness and safety.The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients

to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III trials have access to such treatments.In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of new drugs was recent compared with the "ancient principles" of self-preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment."The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of taking a medication that might prolong her life," wrote.The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs after Phase I testing.An FDA spokeswoman did not

return a call seeking the agency's response. Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase <http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFpMnJnZ3IxBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHNlYwNtYWlsLXRhZ2xpbmVzBHNsawNmYXJlY2hhc2UtMDQyNzA2>

[Guest guest]

all: wHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON aLTERNATIVEmEDICINE? wrote: P here it was messagge # 2398 P uip 8/00Barbara Soice wrote: Thanks, Peggy. Barb in KYPeggy wrote: on 5/12/06 3:18 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote:Barb, It was an article P posted I think. P did you post that?? I remember reading that if you have a cig and use the oximeter it will not be an accurate reading. Cold

hands, moving around, so many things effect the reading.Several things you need to read. Maybe we can find it in the past posts.I have kids coming soon but I will try to find it. Leanne may have it.!!!!God Bless... Peggy Hey, Peggy: What article on the oxymeter are you talking about. I haven't seen one. Can you give me the link to get to that article? Barb in KYPeggy wrote: Barb, Be sure to read carefully the article on the oximeter. How many patches do you have on today ??? lolYou CAN do this. Walk a lot. God Bless. Peggyon 5/4/06 11:51 PM, Barbara Soice at babs594@... wrote: Hey, : Glad to see your back. Okay,now. This particular news article confuses me. Are we able to get drugs that have not yet be

approved? Or are we not able to get drugs that haven't been approved?Barb in KY wrote: Drugs backed for the terminally illCourt affirms access to unapproved drugsBloomberg NewsPublished May 3, 2006WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over

one's own body, including a right to self-preservation."As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary measures not otherwise justified," Judge Judith wrote for the divided three-judge panel. "Barring a terminally ill patient from the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this right of self-preservation."Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing "the majority's approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and medicine." He said the ruling is contrary to the "expressed will" of Congress and the president.Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I, drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80 patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger groups for

effectiveness and safety.The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III trials have access to such treatments.In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of new drugs was recent compared with the "ancient principles" of self-preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment."The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of taking a medication that might prolong her life," wrote.The appeals court sent

the case back to the lower court to determine whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs after Phase I testing.An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's response. Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase <http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFpMnJnZ3IxBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHNlYwNtYWlsLXRhZ2xpbmVzBHNsawNmYXJlY2hhc2UtMDQyNzA2>

[Guest guest]

,

wHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON aLTERNATIVEmEDICINE? ()

These are my thoughts. I do not want to add to my mix of prescription meds any substance that has not been regulated as to formulary or that has not been properly tested. This disease is waaaaay too serious to play around with unknown substances.

If you go online there are millions of links to alternative medicines, claims mostly made by people trying to get rich off the suffering of the very ill. Many of these such as Coral Calcium, Sea Silver, etc. have been exposed on national t.v. as nothing but scams.

I do believe each one of us have the right to search out and take anything that we want. It is our life, our suffering and our future at stake. I am also seeing here that many doctors are offering no treatment plan for thier patients. I too, would be looking for some way to help myself. Sadly, there are others profiting greatly because of this.

Enough said! Good topic!

Hugs to all,

Joyce

> > > > > > > > > Drugs backed for the terminally ill> Court affirms access to unapproved drugs> > Bloomberg News> Published May 3, 2006> > > WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients have a right to get access to > potentially life-saving new drugs that haven't received full > government safety approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.> > An advocacy group for the terminally ill sued the Food and Drug > Administration after the agency refused to give them new drugs that > had passed the first of three FDA testing phases. A lower court > upheld the FDA's refusal and dismissed the suit.> > A federal appeals court in Washington, overturning the lower court's > decision, said U.S. law recognizes a right to control over one's own > body, including a right to self-preservation.> > "As recognized throughout Anglo-American history and law, when a > person is faced with death, necessity often warrants extraordinary > measures not otherwise justified," Judge Judith wrote for the > divided three-judge panel. "Barring a terminally ill patient from > the use of a potentially life-saving treatment impinges on this > right of self-preservation."> > Judge Bell Griffith dissented, arguing "the majority's > approach injects courts into unknown questions of science and > medicine." He said the ruling is contrary to the "expressed will" of > Congress and the president.> > Drugs must pass three phases of testing before they can be marketed > to the public, the court said, citing FDA regulations. In phase I, > drugs are tested for their side effects on a group of 20 to 80 > patients. In the subsequent two phases, drugs are tested on larger > groups for effectiveness and safety.> > The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, which > is based in Arlington, Va., told the appeals court the whole process > takes an average of seven years. They want terminally ill patients > to be able to try so-called investigational new drugs after the > first phase. Under FDA rules only participants in Phase II and III > trials have access to such treatments.> > In its ruling the appeals court said that government regulation of > new drugs was recent compared with the "ancient principles" of self-> preservation. The court further cited earlier court decisions > holding that an informed, competent person can refuse potentially > life-saving medical treatment.> > "The logical corollary is that an individual must also be free to > decide for herself whether to assume any known or unknown risks of > taking a medication that might prolong her life," wrote.> > The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to determine > whether the existing FDA rule serves a compelling government > interest that warrants trumping the right to access to the drugs > after Phase I testing.> > An FDA spokeswoman did not return a call seeking the agency's > response.> > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------> > > Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase <http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFpMnJnZ3IxBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHNlYwNtYWlsLXRhZ2xpbmVzBHNsawNmYXJlY2hhc2UtMDQyNzA2> > >