The right to heal: Politics, civil rights, and the need for new ethical concepts regarding regenerative medical care in orthopedics

In “The Right to Heal,” Tommy Curry examines racial disparities in the treatment of chronic pain. Weaving medical paradigms that emphasize informed consent as a dominant value and debates in bioethics surrounding stem cell treatments, Curry argues that such therapeutic treatments fall into a category where they are unjustifiably denied. That is, since stem cells are classified as a drug by the US FDA, and stem cell treatments are judged by the ability of patients to give informed consent. This requirement supposedly comports with patient autonomy, but, as Curry argues, creates a situation in which medical treatment for the roots of chronic pain is closed for many people. In response, he suggests that informed consent is one of many values that ought to guide the approval of treatments, and it can be weighed against others. Further, he presses that a medical paradigm that only focuses on the suppression of pain symptoms diminishes individual autonomy. Instead, a “right to heal” better coheres with the value. It also turns our attention to the Belmont Report and encourages its reading as a civil rights document, addressing the ways in which racial discrimination compounds with difficulties disabled people face interaction with American medical institutions.