Cargando…
The ‘false hope’ argument in discussions on expanded access to investigational drugs: a critical assessment
When seriously ill patients reach the end of the standard treatment trajectory for their condition, they may qualify for the use of unapproved, investigational drugs regulated via expanded access programs. In medical-ethical discourse, it is often argued that expanded access to investigational drugs...
Autores principales: | Hordijk, Marjolijn, Vermeulen, Stefan F., Bunnik, Eline M. |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9366814/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35951276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11019-022-10106-y |
Ejemplares similares
-
Do Physicians Have a Duty to Discuss Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs with their Patients? A Normative Analysis
por: Vermeulen, Stefan F., et al.
Publicado: (2023) -
Medicine’s collision with false hope: The False Hope Harms (FHH) argument
por: Eijkholt, Marleen
Publicado: (2020) -
Access to effective but expensive treatments: An analysis of the solidarity argument in discussions on funding of medical treatments
por: van Till, Sietske A. L., et al.
Publicado: (2022) -
Mandatory vaccination and the ‘seat belt analogy’ argument: a critical analysis in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic
por: de Miguel Beriain, Iñigo
Publicado: (2022) -
Shades of hope: Marcel’s notion of hope in end-of-life care
por: Szabat, Marta, et al.
Publicado: (2021)