Biotech Values

[iwfal]

North - Having read the opinion and the dissent (thanks) I am once again impressed by how much the legal system distorts the real issue.

E.g. The Abigail Alliance, despite some talk of systems where access would be given only to those ineligible for the trial (so trials could continue to enroll and be run), put forth a blanket right to access after ph 1. This would make it impossible to run a randomized trial which would (guaranteed!!) result in a lot more early deaths than would be prevented by early access. This is really about the rights of the many (in the future) vs the rights of the few (here and now).

Presumably AA made this change (to be about universal access) because they thought their strongest case lay in doing this (making it about right life) - but had they won they would have killed more people than they saved. Perversely they appear to have been fighting the battle they could 'win' (legally) even if it really meant losing their cause.

And given that without doubt the dissenting opinion was much less forced than the majority opinion I would guess that the judges knew that the battle was the wrong one.

?