Health

Patients Have a Right To Try. Why Can't They Use It?

Terminally ill patients were promised access to experimental treatments, but the "right to try" exists mostly on paper.

Jeffrey A. Singer | 5.12.2026 3:57 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Midjourney)

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejection of RP1, an experimental immunotherapy for advanced melanoma, has sparked frustration among oncologists and patients who see it as another promising therapy kept out of reach.

Last month, the agency issued a "complete response letter" declining to approve the therapy, citing insufficient evidence of effectiveness and concerns about the trial's design.

Oncologists and researchers have pushed back, arguing that the FDA dismissed encouraging response data and applied standards that may not fit patients with few remaining options. For patients with advanced melanoma who have exhausted standard treatments, that decision is not an abstract regulatory judgment—it can mean the difference between having one more option and having none.

The case raises an obvious question: Whatever happened to "Right to Try," the policy enacted during the first Trump administration? It was intended for precisely this situation. Yet even when patients are told they have a right to try, that right often exists more on paper than in practice.

Congress passed the federal Right to Try Act in 2018 with a straightforward idea: Terminally ill patients with limited options should be able to access investigational therapies without waiting years for full FDA approval. Lawmakers sought to........

© Reason.com