The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), an oncology organization comprised of more than thirty thousand professionals worldwide, purports to advocate for policies that facilitate access to high-quality care for all cancer patients. In Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Andrew C. Von Eschenbach, however, ASCO offered intellectual backing for an unjust American State directive that intentionally denies high-quality care to cancer patients. An August 08, 2007 ASCO Statement on Court Ruling Against Access to Unapproved Drugs — commenting on the penultimate judicial ruling in the case — contains ample evidence to illustrate this claim.

The 2007 ASCO Statement begins with a sketch of the Abigail Alliance litigation,

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled August 7 that terminally ill patients do not have a constitutional right to access to experimental drugs that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The 8-2 ruling by the court in the case, Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Andrew C. Von Eschenbach, overturned a verdict made by a three-judge appeals panel in May 2006.

In its suit, the Abigail Alliance had claimed that terminally ill patients have a constitutional right to access unapproved drugs once they have been tested in phase I clinical trials.

ASCO, along with the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship (NCCS) and the Association of American Medical Colleges, submitted an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in February in support of the FDA’s position.

The Statement then delivers the first ASCO argument for the unjust American State policy,

The amicus brief argued that phase I tests do not provide an adequate assessment of safety, much less efficacy, to warrant making an investigational drug commercially available.

ASCO thereby argues that the voluntary exchange of a new cancer drug should not be permitted (a crime because aggression must be employed against the justly acquired scarce resources of the seller and the buyer to prohibit the transaction) by the American State (a criminal enterprise that acquires revenue via a coercive system of taxation-theft and seeks a compulsory monopoly of force and ultimate decision-making), unless the American State subjectively determines — by arbitrarily substituting its risk-benefit analysis for a cancer patient’s risk-benefit analysis — that the efficacy of the new drug outweighs the toxicity of the new drug (based on scientific studies the American State funds and regulates with wealth poached from Americans via the coercive system of taxation-theft).

Next, the Statement presents a second ASCO argument for the unjust American State policy,

It also argued that prior Supreme Court decisions do not support the creation of the right claimed by the Abigail Alliance.

ASCO thereby argues that the voluntary exchange of a new cancer drug should not be permitted by the American State because the Supreme Court (the foremost judicial body of a criminal enterprise that acquires revenue via a coercive system of taxation-theft and seeks a compulsory monopoly of force and ultimate decision-making) has not previously decreed that the voluntary exchange of the new cancer drug should be permitted — a tour de force of circular logic.

Finally, the Statement details a third ASCO argument for the unjust American State policy,

“In addition, allowing access to unapproved therapies could harm the nation’s ability to develop effective new drugs for all cancer patients by deterring participating in clinical trials.”

ASCO thereby argues that the voluntary exchange of a new cancer drug should not be permitted by the American State because subsequent enrollment in oncology clinical trials might ebb, even though ASCO itself proposes arbitrary minimum standards for clinical trial sites that, by definition, curtail participation in oncology clinical trials.

In summary, ASCO claims to support policies that expedite high-quality care for all cancer patients. However, in the Abigail Alliance case, ASCO proffered three arguments for an unjust American State directive that specifically prohibits access to new cancer drugs by cancer patients, a necessary component of high-quality care. This action not only defines ASCO as an enemy of liberty, but also makes it inconceivable that this international organization shall ever support the approach with the optimum likelihood to truly provide high-quality care for all patients with cancer: Abolition of the State.