"We see no reason why a patient should not be allowed to
make an informed decision to go outside currently approved medical methods
in search of an unconventional treatment."
--Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
(in the landmark case of "Schneider v. Revici," 1987).
Nothing is more precious than freedom. In cancer treatment, freedom
of choice means having the knowledge to make a decision about which treatments
you want. It also means being in a position to reject treatments you do
not want, without pressure or coercion from other people, including doctors
and family members.
This right was adumbrated over a century ago by the British philosopher
John Stuart Mill in his classic
On Liberty, and by U.S. Supreme Court Justices Louis Brandeis
and Benjamin Cardozo,
who wrote that individuals have an essential right of privacy, and
that over their own bodies they could do what they wished. The right has
been spelled out in greater detail by jurists, philosophers, and many
patients in the course of the twentieth century.
While most people in power give lip service to this idea, in practice
our medical rights are often abrogated. As the following articles from
The Cancer Chronicles illustrate, it is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) which most capriciously denies patients freedom of choice by paternalistically
limiting access to unconventional treatments.
Almost everyone agrees that they should have medical freedom of choice
for themselves. However, some people are ready to deny this right to
others. This is usually done under the guise of "consumer protection."
Under a democracy, you cannot legitimately claim a right for yourself
that you are not willing to see extended to every other sane and sentient
adult. Thus, it is logically necessary to uphold every person's right
to obtain--or shun-- a particular medical treatment, especially when
confronted by a life-threatening illness.
What about the FDA? Isn't it still necessary to protect people from
fraud and abuse? How can we square our philosophical belief in freedom
with the reality of the marketplace? Some degree of compromise is necessary,
but I think that over the last 30 years we have swung too far over toward
stringent enforcement of certain laws, and away from the concept of
individual responsibility. Anyway, that dynamic is what makes this whole
struggle so interesting.
In The Cancer Chronicles we have always covered the struggle for medical
freedom of choice and called for restraints on the actions of an overzealous
Food and Drug Administration. We support the Access to Medical Freedom
Act and other legislation that will make it easier for citizens to exercise
their right to choose cancer treatments.
