Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 467–468 | Cite as

Right to Try: In response

  • Denise MeyersonEmail author
Oliver Kim’s ( 2019) criticisms of my article are a mixture of inaccuracies, non sequiturs, and terminological points.
  1. (i)

    He states that I defend the Right to Try laws.

  2. (ii)

    He states that I believe that patients have a right to access innovations “without interference by government agencies or institutional decision-makers.”

  3. (iii)

    He objects that my approach “does not weigh” the other rights at stake.

  4. (iv)

    He says that I have confused innovation with experimentation.

  5. (v)

    He complains that patients often fail to receive recommended treatments, let alone experimental or innovative therapies, and that Right to Try fails to address this problem.

None of these claims survives scrutiny. I will address them in turn.
  1. (i)

    I argue that Right to Try recognizes something important, viz., that the issue of access to investigational products (products that have passed phase I testing and been found safe enough to be tested in phase II or III trials) should be approached within a...



  1. Kim, O. 2019. A response to Meyerson’s defence of the American Right to Try: Experimenting with hope. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 16(3). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Meyerson, D. 2017. Medical negligence determinations, the "Right to Try," and expanded access to innovative treatments. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 14(3):385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Macquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia

Personalised recommendations