Right to Try Canada Pushed by ALS Patients

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
“If terminally ill patients have the right to end our lives, why aren’t we allowed to try promising experimental treatments?”

Terminally-ill patients are requesting faster access to potential life-saving treatments.

https://www.righttotrycanada.com/


A group of Canadians with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is lobbying quietly for a “Right to Try” law allowing doctors to treat terminally-ill patients with unproven and unapproved procedures and drugs.

This week, Gino Sisera, a 34-year-old father of two dying of ALS, was featured on CTV News and lamented his plight. “Right now, there is only one outcome in my future.” Noting the recent passage of Bill C-14 legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide, he asked,

“If terminally ill patients have the right to end our lives, why aren’t we allowed to try promising experimental treatments?”

The federal government’s Special Access Program provides some leeway for the use of unapproved drugs and procedures, but it is severely restricted, according to Jeffrey Perreault, the co-founder of Right to Try Canada.

What’s worse for a terminally ill patient is that getting drugs and procedures approved takes years. “We don’t have years,” Perreault told LifeSiteNews. “We’re dying.”

On the organization’s website is an outline of the steps needed to bring a drug to market: “pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, regulatory product submission, submission review, market authorization decision, public access, and finally, surveillance, inspection and investigation.”

Also, the Special Access Program won’t cover a non-drug treatment such as stem cells. Perreault says there is no drug or procedure in any stage of development for ALS, but adult stem cell injections do offer some hope — but cannot legally be given to Canadian patients.

Right to Try Canada is having encouraging talks with Health Canada, says Perreault, as well as with a group of sympathetic Liberal MPs who made a presentation before the House of Commons caucus last week on the subject.

Right to Try co-founder Owen Thomas, a Nova Scotia lawyer with ALS, has drafted a Right to Try bill that would protect doctors, researchers and suppliers from malpractice or negligence lawsuits. The bill would be limited to mentally competent, terminally-ill adults. The cost of treatment would be up to the patient to provide, says Perreault, but all patients could potentially benefit from proving whether the treatment works or does not.

Perreault wants patients to be able to get potentially curative treatments even after clinical trials are over, at which point patients are usually cut off.

Perreault is particularly keen on marrying up an adult stem cell treatment for ALS developed by an Israeli-American company called Brainstorm with a method pioneered by a University of Toronto team using MRI-focused Ultrasound to target stem cells for use treating stroke victims. The Brainstorm’s method, developed at the Hadassah Medical Centre in Jerusalem, is too invasive, says Perreault, the founder of a company that cleans mining equipment.

Perreault has also founded a fundraising charity, the Adaptive Canuck ALS Foundation to bring Brainstorm, which he says is “cash starved,” to Canada, and to fund other treatments that arise.

ALS Stem Cell Research in Canada


Perreault says he’s committed to raising $5 million to bring Brainstorm’s stem cells to Canada. He has already raised $1 million but says “I’m not funding mice treatments.”


There is opposition to Right to Try legislation, which has passed in 32 U.S. states in the past two years. Bioethicists call the laws “toothless” because they only waive federal regulations but do not compel doctors or pharmaceutical companies to provide treatment.


It is claimed they are unconstitutional because state laws cannot overrule federal laws and would fail if challenged by federal regulators. This is not a problem with the Canadian proposal for a federal law.


Ethicists also complain that the law allows drugs to be used before there is evidence they work, which effectively means patients lack informed consent.


Terminally ill patients campaign for ‘right to try’ treatments | Ottawa Citizen
 

Murphy

Executive Branch Member
Apr 12, 2013
8,181
0
36
Ontario
That seems reasonable. As they say, if they are going to die, what difference would it make?

But more importantly, should it work, or be unsuccessful, but lead to a cure, then it's a medical step forward.
 

Mokkajava

Electoral Member
Nov 14, 2016
250
0
16
Saskatchewan
Agreed Murphy. Very tired with a society that dictates how we are are allowed to get sick, live with illness, and pass on. We need rights over our own health management. But pharmaceuticals are big money, and I believe there is more in play here than choosing to become part of an experiment. The right to try will be blocked for a long time yet... because there is no money in cures.... only treatments.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,626
6,975
113
B.C.
Agreed Murphy. Very tired with a society that dictates how we are are allowed to get sick, live with illness, and pass on. We need rights over our own health management. But pharmaceuticals are big money, and I believe there is more in play here than choosing to become part of an experiment. The right to try will be blocked for a long time yet... because there is no money in cures.... only treatments.
Sums up my first thought $ .
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
If people with ALS don't have access to this, then we really need to update the legislation.

It pisses me off even more than cancer that people have to suffer through ALS.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Here's a story I posted some time ago that is related.......




Two lung disease specialists are accusing Health Canada of shortening some patients' lives, by denying them access to an inexpensive, relatively harmless drug not sold in Canada.

“I am appalled and angry that a federal agency that we fund through our taxes would deny Canadian citizens who are dying of a treatable, infectious disease potentially life-saving medication,” said Dr. David Forrest

In previous years, Health Canada granted several patients special access to the drug, called clofazimine. The doctors said that approach has suddenly changed, for no good reason.

“We had a process in place that was working, for 20 years or so, and now all of a sudden we’re running up against a brick wall,” said Dr. Stephen Field.

The patients have a bacterial lung infection called Mycobacterium avium complex, known as MAC, but are ‘multi-drug resistant.’

"It’s a very uncomfortable way to slowly pass away," said Field.

One of Forrest’s patients, Dean Robertson, has been treated with several drugs since 2010, but none worked. Forrest wants to give him clofazimine — which has been widely used for leprosy — to treat his lung disease.

“If I don’t get this drug I am going to possibly die from this infection,” said Robertson, who was forced to stop working because of his illness.

Clofazimine is widely available in developing countries, but is not approved for sale in the U.S. or Canada, because the drug company Novartis hasn’t applied for approval.

“To get drugs approved requires big support from the pharmaceutical companies and they will only do it if there is a realistic possibility of them making profit,” said Field.

more

Health Canada blocks dying patients from access to drug - British Columbia - CBC News



Here's your answer...........And, to the Politicians, the Money has spoken..........

Obama Administration, Congress Intensify Opposition To Global Generic Drug Industry


In January, India's Supreme Court rejected a patent on a Novartis leukemia drug called Gleevec (or Glivec), clearing the way for cheaper generic production. The active ingredient in Gleevec has been available for years, but Novartis filed for a patent on an updated version available in pill form. India's highest court turned down the application on the grounds that the delivery format did not constitute a legitimate innovation.

Gleevec is protected by multiple U.S. patents, and costs upwards of $75,000 a year domestically. In India, where annual per capita income is about $1,400, Novartis was charging about $31,000 a year for the medication. The generic version legalized by the court's decision costs around $2,100.

Last year, India also permitted a generic manufacturer to produce a cheaper version of another cancer drug patented by Bayer AG. Bayer was charging $5,000 a month for the drug, while only servicing about 2 percent of the population that needed it. The generic version was priced at $157 a month.

By securing secondary patents, as Novartis tried to do with Gleevec, drug companies can effectively extend monopolies on their medicines beyond the standard 20-year window required by World Trade Organization treaties. The practice is known as "evergreening," and is frowned upon by the World Health Organization.

more

Obama Administration, Congress Intensify Opposition To Global Generic Drug Industry