The Supreme Court on Monday refused to review a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that rejected efforts by special interest groups to expand the Constitution to add a right under which the government could be mandated to provide experimental drugs to terminally-ill patients.
In addition to rejecting the idea of creating a new Constitutional right, the lower federal court had based its decision in part on separation of powers principles, noting that Congress could and should be the government body to decide whether to increase access to experimental drugs.
For additional commentary/info just click on the link below.
To me there can be no question — from the conservative standpoint — the D.C. Circuit got that one correct. Last time I looked, the Bill of Rights said nothing whatsoever about being able to force the government to give you meds or to become a guinea pig. The appeals court judges put it this way:
[We] conclude that there is no fundamental right ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ of access to experimental drugs for the terminally ill.
* * *
The full appeals court ruling can be accessed by clicking this link.
The appellate judges who ruled against the idea of expanding the Consitution and thus in favor of judicial restraint:
Griffith — nominated by George W. Bush.
Sentelle — Reagan
Henderson — George H.W. Bush
Randolph — George H.W. Bush
Brown — George W. Bush
Kavanaugh — George W. Bush
Tatel — Clinton
Garland — Clinton
* * *
Here’s a link to an account by the Associated Press. For obvious reasons that media report was couched and organized far differently from the ways in which this post were written.