TOW #3

            “In cancer drug battle, both sides appeal to ethics”. An article with a title such as this is innately expected to be full of conflicting viewpoints, double-sided arguments, and scientific appeals. Unbiased CNN contributor Michael Hudson delivers all of these aspects in this piece for CNN.com. The story begins with Andrea Sloan, a 45-year-old attorney from Texas who is terminally ill with ovarian cancer. After trying all normal treatment options, Sloan was presented with an interesting truth. Her best and possibly only chance at survival is a new experimental drug called BMN 673, which is produced by a California Pharmaceutical company called BioMarin. However, the drug is still going through clinical trials and is not yet available for Ms. Sloan’s access. In spite of the FDA endorsement for Ms. Sloan’s use of the drug under cause of “compassionate care” and a specialist doctor’s recommendation, BioMarin refuses to release to Ms. Sloan the only drug that may give her a chance at survival.

            Hudson’s purpose in writing this article was simply to get the word out about a major issue that many people are unaware of in the medical field of America today. Experimental drugs, especially regarding cancer treatment, are very controversial, and the question of whether the possible benefits outweigh the possible risks is one that has been largely left up to the individual patients and companies involved up to this point. It is fair to say that much of the general American public has little or no knowledge of the controversies surrounding the release of experimental drugs, so Hudson targeted the general masses in this article to serve the dual purpose of getting the word out about the situation and possibly garnering support for Sloan’s case.

            To help achieve his purpose of spreading awareness, Hudson provided ample background information on the reasons for controversy surrounding experimental treatment drugs and specifically describing Sloan’s case in which the drug may be her only chance of survival. Although this subject- matter is obviously emotional in nature, Hudson actually appealed more to logos than pathos with his usage of facts, figures, and scientific background. I believe that Hudson was very effective in using logical information, rather than emotional distortions, to make the reader aware of medical conflict that increasingly relevant in American society today.