The Dangers of Magical Thinking: Situating Right To Try Laws, Patient Rights, and the Language of Advocacy
Abstract
On the surface, “right-to-try” laws claim to benefit seriously ill patients by expanding their access to experimental medications. I suggest that a broader “Right To Try” discourse, unlike a historically significant earlier critique of FDA practice, ACT UP’s FDA Action Handbook, undercuts the possibility for what Nathan Stormer (2004) calls prosthetic thinking by eliding material experience from its consideration of medical rights. By emphasizing a language of constitutional rights, including an ill-defined belief in a right to health, Right To Try discourse participates in practices that Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988) might associate with manufacturing consent, or creating the appearance of personal agency by leveraging public opinion through propaganda. In replacing medical information with language about constitutional rights, Right To Try discourse looks past the reality of physical bodies as well as conceptual bodies of medical knowledge, compromising the possibility for meaningful rhetorical articulation.
- Journal
- Rhetoric of Health and Medicine
- Published
- 2018-05-24
- DOI
- 10.5744/rhm.2018.1008
- CompPile
- Open Access
- OA PDF Gold
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Cited by in this index (0)
No articles in this index cite this work.
References (0)
No references on file for this article.
Related Articles
-
Res Rhetorica Oct 2025Fractured borders and politics of resistance: Post-9/11 through Rabiye Kurnaz vs. George W. Bush (2022) ↗BETÜL ATEŞCİ KOÇAK
-
Res Rhetorica Oct 2025Alma Vančura
-
Res Rhetorica Jun 2025Language as a front of conflict: Russian discourse on the Ukrainian language in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war ↗Nadia Gergalo-Dabek
-
Philosophy & Rhetoric Apr 2025Nirvana Tanoukhi; Nicholas Dunn
-
Rhetoric & Public Affairs Dec 2024Randall Fowler