Talk:Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Asco brief only[edit]

there were briefs filed by other amici besides ASCO that disagreed with ASCO. Why is only the ASCO brief mentioned? THF 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that this case extends further than simply the question of how drugs are tested. In effect, a ruling for Abigail would've reaffirmed the right to self-determination as a constitutional right, which would have deep consequences for just about any form or regulation our nanny state undertakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.89.12 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well this case had major implications in many areas including palliative care, research ethics and the concept of rationing and has triggered dozens of articles in the literature. Mgoodyear (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This article mentioned in Torts casebook[edit]

I find it amusing that this pathetic little article is cited as offering a "continuous update on the controversy": Epstein, Cases and Materials on Torts, Ninth Edition, p. 42. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.229.54 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Slanted[edit]

This article seems very slanted against the Abigail Alliance and in support of the FDA's position. For example it states as fact that if Abigail Alliance had won participation in Stage II and III trials would go down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.9.70 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This does seem likely, as participation in trials means you have a 50% chance of getting "standard" treatment or even a placebo, also there is more procedures and testing associated with trials. If you could guarantee getting the experimental drug with less bureaucracy you may choose that route. I have added a cite needed to the sentence. - RoyBoy 21:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV remove[edit]

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 21:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)