258:
clinical trials, which are used to determine side effects and efficacy of new drugs. While eligibility factors and geography may limit the ability of some terminally ill patients to access new drugs through clinical trials, those trials also protect patients by collecting safety and efficacy data on
245:
Implementing the changes proposed by the
Abigail Alliance would have exposed some terminally ill patients to treatments which would ultimately not be approved because of inefficacy and toxicity. The expected success rate of cancer drugs at the Phase I stage of clinical testing is 6%.
508:
249:
If the
Abigail Alliance had been successful in court, the suit would have radically altered the conduct of clinical cancer research, by providing almost unfettered legal access to experimental drugs by terminally ill patients, who would then have little incentive to enter
320:. On August 7, 2007, the Court issued an 8-2 decision against the Abigail Alliance, reversing the previous panel decision, thereby upholding the previous court decision that found no constitutional right to unapproved drugs by terminally ill patients. Judge
241:
From its inception, the US Government has charged the FDA with a mission of overseeing testing of new drugs. Challenges to this core definition, as in the
Abigail Alliance court case, would likely require broad changes to the FDA's operating mandate.
515:
688:
331:
Frank
Burroughs, Abigail's father, vowed to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court declined to accept the case, which effectively ended the case with the existing FDA regulations intact.
234:
before the FDA approves them. Specifically, the
Abigail Alliance argued that the FDA should license drugs for use by terminally ill patients with "desperate diagnoses," after they have completed
210:
declined to hear the appeal. Their refusal left standing the appellate court decision, which said that patients have no right to "a potentially toxic drug with no proven therapeutic benefit."
29:
218:
Abigail
Burroughs was a college student diagnosed with head and neck cancer. During the later phases of her treatment, Abigail's father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization, the
238:
testing. If successful, the suit would have eliminated FDA prohibitions on selling unapproved drugs, and left the decision entirely in the hands of drug manufacturers.
309:
proposed that the
Constitution does not guarantee the right to access unapproved medications, and that the court case threatens the cancer clinical trial enterprise.
219:
107:
313:
283:
230:. The argument made by the Abigail Alliance in court was that terminal cancer patients have a constitutionally protected right to access to
472:
540:
643:
382:
76:
693:
306:
298:
207:
556:
420:
393:
391:
591:
495:
92:
388:
398:
437:
Jacobson P, Parmet W (2007). "A new era of unapproved drugs: the case of
Abigail Alliance v Von Eschenbach".
609:
291:
297:
The FDA requested that the Court of
Appeals rehear the case. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (
305:
brief to the U.S. Court of
Appeals in advance of the March 1 hearing, supporting the FDA's position.
226:. At that time, Erbitux was available experimentally only for patients participating in colon cancer
670:
627:
231:
143:
290:
protects the right of terminally ill patients to access treatments that are not approved by the
263:
111:
41:
8:
661:
652:
600:
255:
155:
139:
127:
251:
235:
159:
151:
135:
534:
454:
131:
446:
325:
183:
Griffith, joined by Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Kavanaugh
473:"BioTime, Inc. Appoints Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D. to its Board of Directors"
424:
341:
287:
163:
399:"No right to experimental drugs for dying patients: Supreme Court - Yahoo! News"
227:
147:
418:
682:
321:
271:
637:
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach
585:
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach
491:
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach
458:
450:
378:
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach
199:
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach
21:
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach
344:, a long-standing FDA program for providing experimental drugs to patients
689:
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit cases
103:
618:
266:, Commissioner of the FDA from 2006 to 2009, and later a Director at
639:, 495 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (en banc opinion) is available from:
40:
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, et al v.
30:
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
587:, 445 F.3d 470 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (panel opinion) is available from:
317:
267:
223:
167:
348:
206:, 552 U.S. 1159 (2008) was resolved in early 2008 when the
286:
ruled in favor of the Abigail Alliance and found that the
220:
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs
436:
557:"Court Rejects the Right to Use Drugs Being Tested"
351:, 9th ed. (2008) Richard A. Epstein. (pp. 42)
314:U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
284:U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
680:
262:The von Eschenbach referred to in the case is
277:
259:new drugs under controlled circumstances.
545:Amicus brief by ASCO, filed February 2007
372:
370:
368:
366:
364:
91:2004 WL 3777340 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2004);
554:
427:Abigal Alliance Citizen Petition to FDA
681:
539:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
483:
361:
13:
555:Pollack, Andrew (August 8, 2007).
208:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
705:
577:
202:, 495 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 2007),
222:and sued the FDA for access to
694:2007 in United States case law
548:
501:
465:
430:
412:
1:
355:
213:
292:Food and Drug Administration
7:
335:
10:
710:
498: (D.C. Cir. 2006).
477:BusinessWire Press Release
385: (D.C. Cir. 2007).
191:Rogers, joined by Ginsburg
187:
179:
174:
123:
118:
99:
87:
82:
72:
64:
56:
48:
35:
25:
20:
232:experimental medications
144:Judith Ann Wilson Rogers
95:(D.C. Cir. May 2, 2006).
42:Andrew C. von Eschenbach
347:Cases and Materials on
278:Progression of the case
451:10.1001/jama.297.2.205
312:On March 1, 2007, the
264:Andrew von Eschenbach
496:445 F.3d 470
383:495 F.3d 695
479:. November 9, 2011.
156:Janice Rogers Brown
140:A. Raymond Randolph
128:Douglas H. Ginsburg
561:The New York Times
423:2007-02-21 at the
160:Thomas B. Griffith
152:Merrick B. Garland
136:Karen L. Henderson
100:Subsequent history
316:reheard the case
282:In May 2006, the
195:
194:
132:David B. Sentelle
701:
675:
669:
666:
660:
657:
651:
648:
642:
632:
626:
623:
617:
614:
608:
605:
599:
596:
590:
572:
571:
569:
567:
552:
546:
544:
538:
530:
528:
526:
521:on June 14, 2007
520:
514:. Archived from
513:
505:
499:
493:
487:
481:
480:
469:
463:
462:
434:
428:
416:
410:
409:
407:
405:
395:
386:
380:
374:
326:Douglas Ginsburg
324:and Chief judge
119:Court membership
114:1159 (2008).
52:October 21, 2005
18:
17:
709:
708:
704:
703:
702:
700:
699:
698:
679:
678:
673:
667:
664:
658:
655:
649:
646:
640:
630:
624:
621:
615:
612:
606:
603:
597:
594:
588:
580:
575:
565:
563:
553:
549:
532:
531:
524:
522:
518:
511:
509:"Archived copy"
507:
506:
502:
489:
488:
484:
471:
470:
466:
435:
431:
425:Wayback Machine
417:
413:
403:
401:
397:
396:
389:
376:
375:
362:
358:
342:Expanded access
338:
288:US Constitution
280:
228:clinical trials
216:
164:Brett Kavanaugh
12:
11:
5:
707:
697:
696:
691:
677:
676:
671:Google Scholar
633:
628:Google Scholar
579:
578:External links
576:
574:
573:
547:
500:
482:
464:
429:
411:
387:
359:
357:
354:
353:
352:
345:
337:
334:
279:
276:
215:
212:
193:
192:
189:
185:
184:
181:
177:
176:
172:
171:
148:David S. Tatel
125:
124:Judges sitting
121:
120:
116:
115:
101:
97:
96:
89:
85:
84:
80:
79:
74:
70:
69:
68:August 7, 2007
66:
62:
61:
58:
54:
53:
50:
46:
45:
37:
36:Full case name
33:
32:
27:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
706:
695:
692:
690:
687:
686:
684:
672:
663:
654:
645:
644:CourtListener
638:
634:
629:
620:
611:
602:
593:
592:CourtListener
586:
582:
581:
562:
558:
551:
542:
536:
517:
510:
504:
497:
492:
486:
478:
474:
468:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
433:
426:
422:
419:
415:
400:
394:
392:
384:
379:
373:
371:
369:
367:
365:
360:
350:
346:
343:
340:
339:
333:
329:
327:
323:
322:Judith Rogers
319:
315:
310:
308:
304:
300:
295:
293:
289:
285:
275:
273:
272:biotechnology
269:
265:
260:
257:
253:
247:
243:
239:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
211:
209:
205:
201:
200:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:Case opinions
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
126:
122:
117:
113:
109:
105:
102:
98:
94:
90:
88:Prior history
86:
81:
78:
75:
71:
67:
63:
60:March 1, 2007
59:
55:
51:
47:
44:
43:
38:
34:
31:
28:
24:
19:
16:
636:
584:
564:. Retrieved
560:
550:
523:. Retrieved
516:the original
503:
490:
485:
476:
467:
445:(2): 205–8.
442:
438:
432:
414:
402:. Retrieved
377:
330:
311:
302:
296:
281:
261:
248:
244:
240:
217:
203:
198:
197:
196:
93:445 F.3d 470
83:Case history
77:495 F.3d 695
39:
15:
404:January 14,
328:dissented.
301:) filed an
204:cert denied
683:Categories
619:OpenJurist
356:References
214:Background
106:. denied,
566:April 23,
274:company.
256:Phase III
635:Text of
583:Text of
535:cite web
525:April 7,
459:17213404
421:Archived
336:See also
252:Phase II
180:Majority
73:Citation
57:Reargued
653:Findlaw
601:Findlaw
318:en banc
268:BioTime
236:Phase I
224:Erbitux
188:Dissent
168:en banc
65:Decided
674:
668:
665:
662:Leagle
659:
656:
650:
647:
641:
631:
625:
622:
616:
613:
610:Justia
607:
604:
598:
595:
589:
494:,
457:
381:,
303:amicus
49:Argued
519:(PDF)
512:(PDF)
349:Torts
110:
26:Court
568:2010
541:link
527:2007
455:PMID
439:JAMA
406:2008
307:ASCO
299:ASCO
270:, a
254:and
112:U.S.
104:Cert
447:doi
443:297
108:552
685::
559:.
537:}}
533:{{
475:.
453:.
441:.
390:^
363:^
294:.
162:,
158:,
154:,
150:,
146:,
142:,
138:,
134:,
130:,
570:.
543:)
529:.
461:.
449::
408:.
170:)
166:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.