Montana has enacted a "right to try" law allowing terminally ill patients to access experimental treatments outside standard FDA approval pathways. The law addresses cases where conventional medicine offers no viable options and patients face imminent death.

Kris DeVault's son Brody illustrates the law's urgency. Born in March 2023, Brody showed developmental delays across speech, movement, and coordination. Genetic testing revealed a rare condition with limited treatment options through conventional channels. For families like DeVaults, experimental therapies represent a last resort when approved drugs fail.

Right to try laws operate on a fundamental principle: terminally ill patients should retain autonomy over their medical choices when death appears inevitable. Rather than waiting for lengthy FDA clinical trials, patients can petition pharmaceutical companies directly for access to investigational drugs still in development. The company must believe the drug shows promise, though not proven efficacy. Patients assume legal liability; companies gain liability protection.

Montana's law joins dozens of similar state-level measures adopted since Texas pioneered right to try legislation in 2015. The approach gained federal recognition when President Trump signed the federal Right to Try Act in 2018, establishing a pathway for expanded access nationwide.

The law's expansion reflects growing frustration with regulatory timelines. Standard FDA approval requires years of clinical data collection. For rare genetic disorders affecting small populations, trials move slowly and recruit fewer participants. Parents facing their child's progressive neurological decline often view experimental access as the only meaningful option.

Critics raise valid concerns. Experimental drugs carry unknown risks. Success in early-stage trials doesn't guarantee patient benefit. Right to try laws risk creating false hope while generating safety data that improves future compounds but doesn't help current patients. Some worry these laws reduce incentives for companies to pursue standard approval pathways.

Yet for families exhausting conventional options, the distinction between hope and false hope blurs. Brody's case