Talk:Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach

Asco brief only

there were briefs filed by other amici besides ASCO that disagreed with ASCO. Why is only the ASCO brief mentioned? THF 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that this case extends further than simply the question of how drugs are tested. In effect, a ruling for Abigail would've reaffirmed the right to self-determination as a constitutional right, which would have deep consequences for just about any form or regulation our nanny state undertakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.89.12 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well this case had major implications in many areas including palliative care, research ethics and the concept of rationing and has triggered dozens of articles in the literature. Mgoodyear (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This article mentioned in Torts casebook

I find it amusing that this pathetic little article is cited as offering a "continuous update on the controversy": Epstein, Cases and Materials on Torts, Ninth Edition, p. 42. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.229.54 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Slanted

This article seems very slanted against the Abigail Alliance and in support of the FDA's position. For example it states as fact that if Abigail Alliance had won participation in Stage II and III trials would go down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.9.70 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This does seem likely, as participation in trials means you have a 50% chance of getting "standard" treatment or even a placebo, also there is more procedures and testing associated with trials. If you could guarantee getting the experimental drug with less bureaucracy you may choose that route. I have added a cite needed to the sentence. - RoyBoy 21:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV remove

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 21:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614015045/http://gicancers.asco.org/ASCO/Downloads/Cancer%20Policy%20and%20Clinical%20Affairs/Cancer%20Policy%20News/Cancer%20Policy%20Alerts/Abigail%20Alliance%20Amicus%20Brief--Final%20Date-Stamped%20Copy.PDF to http://gicancers.asco.org/ASCO/Downloads/Cancer%20Policy%20and%20Clinical%20Affairs/Cancer%20Policy%20News/Cancer%20Policy%20Alerts/Abigail%20Alliance%20Amicus%20Brief--Final%20Date-Stamped%20Copy.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)