3 Ways Right to Try Laws and Kratom Could Transform Plant Medicine Access
Faust
For individuals grappling with a terminal illness, the pursuit of hope often leads to uncharted paths. When conventional treatments fall short, the urge to explore alternative options becomes a powerful driving force. Discussions about Right to Try laws and kratom highlight this delicate balance between patient autonomy and regulatory oversight. These laws, crafted to provide access to experimental therapies, raise intriguing questions about their potential to include plant-based medicines like kratom, a botanical rooted in centuries of traditional use.
Right to Try laws create a pathway for terminally ill patients to access unapproved treatments under specific conditions. Kratom, derived from the Mitragyna speciosa tree of Southeast Asia, sits at the crossroads of cultural heritage and modern regulatory debates. While not a cure, its role in pain management and wellness prompts curiosity about how such laws could broaden access to natural remedies.
The Origins of Right to Try: A Response to Patient Needs
Right to Try laws arose from growing frustration with the slow pace of medical approvals. For patients facing life-threatening conditions, waiting years for a therapy to clear regulatory hurdles can feel insurmountable. The movement began at the state level, with Colorado passing the first such law in 2014. This legislation allowed terminally ill individuals to access experimental drugs that had completed initial safety testing but lacked full approval. The concept gained traction quickly, and within a few years, over 40 states adopted similar measures, reflecting a shared conviction that patients deserve options when confronting dire prognoses.
The push for these laws was deeply personal. Families and advocates shared compelling stories of loved ones denied access to promising therapies due to bureaucratic barriers. Imagine a young woman with a rare neurological disorder, unable to join a clinical trial because of strict eligibility rules or geographic limitations. Such cases fueled public support, urging lawmakers to prioritize patient choice over institutional delays. By 2018, the movement reached the federal level with the passage of the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act. Named after individuals whose struggles inspired reform, this law established a national standard, enabling eligible patients to request unapproved treatments directly from manufacturers, reducing reliance on federal agency approvals.
This federal framework addressed inconsistencies across state laws, which varied in details like patient eligibility or liability protections. It streamlined access, ensuring that someone in Oregon had the same opportunities as someone in Florida. However, the law did not eliminate oversight entirely. Manufacturers retain the discretion to provide treatments, and basic safety requirements remain in place. Critics raised concerns about the risks of untested therapies, arguing that bypassing full trials could expose patients to harm. Supporters countered that for those with no other options, the potential benefits outweigh the uncertainties. This debate sets the stage for exploring how Right to Try laws kratom applications might unfold.
How Right to Try Works: Eligibility and Process
To understand the potential of Right to Try laws for kratom scenarios, we must first examine their mechanics. These laws are designed with precise criteria to serve those in the greatest need. Patients must have a life-threatening condition, such as advanced cancer or a progressive degenerative disease, where standard treatments have been exhausted. They must also be ineligible for clinical trials, often due to factors like location, health status, or trial availability.
The therapies covered are equally specific. Eligible treatments include drugs, biologics, or devices that have completed Phase 1 clinical trials, confirming basic safety in small groups. These must be under active development, with ongoing trials aimed at eventual approval. Manufacturers are not obligated to provide access, and patients must sign informed consent forms acknowledging potential risks, such as unforeseen side effects. The process typically begins with a physician contacting the manufacturer to request the therapy. If approved, treatment occurs outside formal trials, often under a doctor’s direct supervision.
Liability protections are a critical feature. Manufacturers and healthcare providers are generally shielded from lawsuits, except in cases of gross misconduct, encouraging participation without fear of legal repercussions. The law also requires manufacturers to submit annual reports to the FDA, summarizing patient outcomes and any adverse events. This balances flexibility with accountability, ensuring some oversight without hindering access.
Compared to the FDA’s Expanded Access program, Right to Try offers a faster route. Expanded Access, established decades earlier, requires agency approval for each request, which can delay treatment. Right to Try eliminates this step, appealing to those racing against time. However, its use has been limited, with only a small fraction of patients pursuing this path compared to Expanded Access. Reasons include manufacturer hesitancy, cost barriers, and a preference for established programs. For plant medicines like kratom, these mechanics raise important questions about applicability, which we will explore after examining real-world examples.
Brass tipping scale balancing a capsule bottle with lush kratom leaves on a wooden table
Real-World Applications: Patient Stories and Outcomes
The impact of Right to Try laws becomes most evident through the experiences of those who have used them. While comprehensive data is limited, individual stories illustrate the laws’ potential and challenges. In 2021, a peptide therapy for severe COVID-19 cases reached hundreds of critically ill patients through Right to Try when clinical trials stalled. For families facing grim odds, this access provided a lifeline, even if outcomes varied. In Texas, a physician used state-level Right to Try provisions to offer an experimental radiopharmaceutical to patients with rare neuroendocrine tumors. These individuals, excluded from trials due to restrictive criteria, gained a chance at targeted treatment unavailable through standard care.
These examples underscore the laws’ core strength: empowering patients to make choices in collaboration with their doctors. Families often express relief at having options, even when results are not guaranteed. The emotional weight of agency is profound for those navigating terminal diagnoses. However, challenges persist. Manufacturers may decline to provide therapies due to limited supply or concerns about jeopardizing ongoing trials. Patients often bear the costs, as insurance rarely covers unapproved treatments. Additionally, the lack of structured follow-up data makes it difficult to assess long-term efficacy or safety.
States continue to refine these laws. In 2022, Arizona expanded its Right to Try provisions to include chronic conditions, broadening eligibility beyond terminal illnesses. Other states, like Texas and North Carolina, have introduced bills to incorporate emerging therapies, such as regenerative treatments. These developments suggest a growing willingness to adapt Right to Try frameworks, potentially opening doors for plant-based medicines in regulated contexts.
Kratom’s Regulatory Landscape: A Botanical in Limbo
Kratom’s unique position makes it a compelling case for exploring Right to Try laws kratom intersections. Originating from Southeast Asia, the Mitragyna speciosa tree has been used for centuries in traditional practices, with leaves chewed for energy or brewed for relaxation. In the United States, its legal status varies. Federally, kratom remains unscheduled, but six states, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, have imposed bans as of 2025. Other states, like Utah, regulate it through measures like age restrictions and labeling requirements to ensure consumer safety.
The FDA has voiced concerns about kratom, citing risks associated with its alkaloids, such as mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine. In July 2025, the agency proposed scheduling these compounds, sparking debate among advocates who view kratom as a natural alternative for pain or opioid withdrawal support. The Kratom Consumer Protection Act, introduced in 2023 and reintroduced in subsequent sessions, seeks to regulate it akin to dietary supplements, emphasizing standardized production and labeling to address safety concerns while preserving access.
In Canada, kratom occupies a similar gray area. It is not scheduled, allowing possession, but sales as a health product require regulatory approval, which kratom lacks. Health Canada has flagged potential risks, yet enforcement focuses primarily on unauthorized health claims and imports. This leniency has created a robust online market, reflecting Canada’s broader openness to natural remedies amid discussions about addressing the opioid crisis.
Kratom’s status as a traditional yet contested botanical mirrors the challenges faced by other plant medicines. Its regulatory ambiguity complicates direct application of Right to Try laws, but emerging research and advocacy efforts could shift the conversation, as we will explore next.
Scientist examining a vial of kratom powder in a well-equipped laboratory, surrounded by scientific instruments.
Applying Right to Try Laws Kratom Scenarios: Possibilities and Limits
The question of whether Right to Try laws could apply to kratom hinges on their strict criteria. These laws target investigational therapies in active clinical trials, typically pharmaceutical drugs or biologics that have cleared Phase 1 safety testing. Kratom, as a whole plant product, does not currently meet this standard. No major pharmaceutical company has sponsored FDA-recognized trials for kratom as a drug, and its status as an unregulated botanical places it outside the law’s scope.
However, creative applications warrant consideration. Imagine a scenario where a pharmaceutical firm develops a refined kratom extract, isolating mitragynine for pain management. If this extract completes Phase 1 trials and enters further development, terminally ill patients with chronic pain could theoretically request access under Right to Try, provided the manufacturer agrees. This approach would focus on standardized compounds, addressing regulatory concerns about raw kratom’s variability.
Three potential ways Right to Try laws kratom access could transform plant medicine landscapes include:
Standardized Extracts as a Bridge. Pharmaceutical-grade kratom derivatives could meet Right to Try criteria, offering a controlled option for patients with conditions like end-stage cancer pain. Legislative proposals in 2021 explored including Schedule I-derived compounds post-Phase 1, which could apply to kratom alkaloids if research advances.
State-Level Innovations. Some states have expanded Right to Try to cover chronic or regenerative therapies. For instance, North Carolina’s proposed laws include botanically derived treatments. In states where kratom is legal, such expansions could position it as a supportive therapy for serious conditions, even without federal trial data.
Learning from Cannabis Precedents. Medical cannabis faced similar hurdles but gained traction through research and advocacy. Right to Try frameworks have referenced cannabis trials, suggesting a pathway for kratom if clinical studies emerge. As research into kratom’s alkaloids grows, parallels to cannabis could strengthen its case.
Significant barriers remain. Without clinical trials, whole kratom leaf products cannot qualify. The FDA’s skepticism and lack of manufacturer sponsorship further limit immediate applicability. Additionally, liability concerns might deter smaller producers from participating, even if trials begin. Despite these challenges, the Right to Try framework offers a glimpse of how plant medicines could gain legitimacy through structured access, particularly for those with no other options.
Kratom is not an isolated case. Other plant medicines, like ayahuasca and psilocybin, face similar regulatory hurdles but show promise in specific contexts. Ayahuasca, used traditionally in Amazonian ceremonies, contains DMT, a Schedule I substance. Recent advocacy efforts, including 2024 lawsuits, argue for its inclusion under Right to Try for terminal patients with severe mental health challenges. Similarly, psilocybin, found in certain mushrooms, is gaining traction for end-of-life care, with research institutes pushing for compassionate access based on early trial data.
Cannabis provides a successful model. Epidiolex, a CBD-based drug for epilepsy, transitioned from investigational to approved status, with early access facilitated through programs like Expanded Access. Right to Try could accelerate similar paths for other botanicals. Salvia divinorum, a Mexican plant with potential antidepressant properties, remains restricted but could follow suit if research progresses.
Internationally, these trends resonate. Thailand’s 2021 decriminalization of kratom for medical use reflects a growing acceptance of traditional remedies. Canada’s flexible approach to natural products, while cautious, encourages innovation. These global shifts suggest that Right to Try laws could inspire cross-border frameworks, prioritizing patient access while respecting cultural histories.
Challenges and Ethical Considerations
Applying Right to Try laws kratom and other plant medicines raises complex issues. Access remains uneven, as patients must often cover costs themselves, creating disparities based on wealth. Safety is another concern. Phase 1 trials establish basic safety, but untested botanicals carry risks due to variability in sourcing or preparation. Ethical debates also arise about whether bypassing rigorous trials undermines scientific progress or exploits desperate patients.
In Canada, cultural considerations add depth. Indigenous communities have long used plant medicines, and their knowledge informs modern policy. Any expansion of Right to Try must respect these traditions while ensuring safety and equity. Balancing these factors requires collaboration among patients, regulators, and researchers to create pathways that are both compassionate and responsible.
Wooden bowl of kratom powder resting on a tree stump in a serene forest, enhanced by thriving green leaves.
Frequently Asked Questions About Right to Try Laws Kratom
Q: What exactly are Right to Try laws, and how do they relate to kratom? A: Right to Try laws allow terminally ill patients to access unapproved therapies that have completed Phase 1 safety testing but are not yet fully approved. They relate to kratom only hypothetically, as kratom lacks clinical trials to qualify. However, if a standardized kratom enters trials, patients could potentially request it under these laws, offering a pathway for plant medicine access.
Q: Why is kratom controversial in the context of Right to Try? A: Kratom’s controversy stems from its unregulated status and varying legal standing. While used traditionally for pain and energy, the FDA has raised safety concerns about its alkaloids. Right to Try requires therapies to be in clinical trials, which kratom currently lacks, making its inclusion challenging without further research.
Q: Can Right to Try laws apply to other plant medicines besides kratom? A: Yes, other plant medicines like psilocybin or ayahuasca could potentially qualify if their active compounds enter clinical trials. For example, psilocybin research for end-of-life care shows promise, and advocacy efforts aim to include such botanicals under Right to Try frameworks.
Q: How do Right to Try laws differ from the FDA’s Expanded Access program? A: Right to Try laws allow direct access to unapproved therapies without FDA approval, focusing on speed for terminally ill patients. Expanded Access requires FDA review, which can delay access but offers more oversight. Both aim to help patients, but Right to Try prioritizes immediacy.
Q: What challenges might prevent kratom from being accessed under Right to Try? A: Key challenges include kratom’s lack of Phase 1 trial data, FDA skepticism about its safety, and manufacturer reluctance to provide unapproved products. Additionally, costs often fall on patients, and whole kratom products, as opposed to standardized extracts, do not meet the law’s criteria.
Q: How can patients advocate for kratom’s inclusion in Right to Try frameworks? A: Patients can support advocacy groups pushing for kratom research and regulation, such as those behind the Kratom Consumer Protection Act. Encouraging clinical trials and standardized production could align kratom with Right to Try requirements, expanding access for terminally ill individuals.
Conclusion
The future of Right to Try laws kratom applications lies in advocacy and research. Legislative efforts, like the Kratom Consumer Protection Act, signal a push for standardized regulation that could pave the way for clinical trials. Similarly, growing interest in psilocybin and other botanicals suggests a broader shift toward integrating traditional remedies into modern frameworks. Patients can play a role by supporting advocacy groups that push for research and fair policies. In Canada, aligning with global trends could strengthen access to safe, regulated plant medicines.
As these laws evolve, they remind us that healthcare is about more than rules. It is about giving people a chance to fight for their lives. In conclusion, Right to Try laws kratom discussions illuminate a broader struggle for patient choice. While direct application to kratom remains limited, the framework offers hope for integrating plant medicines into compassionate care. By staying informed and engaged, we can help shape a future where access and safety go hand in hand, ensuring that no one faces the end without hope.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this blog about Right to Try laws and kratom is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered medical, legal, or health advice. Kratom, derived from the Mitragyna speciosa tree, is a botanical with a complex regulatory status and varying legal standing across jurisdictions. It has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Health Canada for any medical use, and its safety and efficacy remain under scrutiny due to limited clinical research.
Potential risks associated with kratom use include adverse effects, interactions with other medications, and variability in product quality, which could lead to serious health consequences. Right to Try laws are designed for terminally ill patients seeking access to experimental therapies under specific conditions, and kratom does not currently meet the criteria for inclusion due to the absence of Phase 1 clinical trial data. Individuals considering kratom or any plant-based medicine should consult a qualified healthcare professional before use, especially those with pre-existing medical conditions or taking other medications.
The authors and publishers of this content are not responsible for any health, safety, or legal outcomes resulting from the use of kratom or reliance on the information provided. Always seek professional medical advice for health-related decisions and verify the legal status of kratom in your jurisdiction before use.
