## Facts

- California Health & Safety Code § 1707.1 made it a misdemeanor to sell, deliver, prescribe, or administer for cancer treatment any drug or device not approved by designated federal or state authorities.
- Dr. James Robert Privitera, Jr., a licensed physician, and several codefendants participated in a plan to import, prescribe, sell, and distribute laetrile (amygdalin, “vitamin B-17”) to cancer patients.
- Privitera prescribed laetrile and referred patients to codefendants as suppliers; certain codefendants referred patients to Privitera and distributed laetrile in residential areas.
- Defendants represented to prospective users that laetrile was an effective treatment or cure for cancer.
- Laetrile had not been approved by the relevant governmental agencies as effective for cancer treatment.
- Defendants argued that constitutional privacy and autonomy protected terminally ill patients’ access to unapproved drugs, including laetrile.

## Issues

1. Whether federal or state constitutional privacy protections include a right of cancer patients (and their physicians) to obtain and use laetrile or other unapproved drugs for cancer treatment.
2. If no fundamental right is implicated, whether § 1707.1 is a valid exercise of the state’s police power under rational basis review.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and upheld the constitutionality of Health & Safety Code § 1707.1.
- The court held that the asserted right to obtain drugs of unproven efficacy is not protected by federal or California constitutional privacy guarantees.
- Because no fundamental right was found, the court applied rational basis review, not compelling-interest scrutiny.
- The court concluded § 1707.1 reasonably relates to legitimate state interests in protecting public health and safety, including shielding cancer patients from ineffective or dangerous treatments and supporting the drug-approval framework.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional privacy does not encompass a right to obtain or use drugs of unproven efficacy for cancer treatment.
- When legislation does not burden a fundamental right, it is evaluated under rational basis review and is valid if reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
- The state may regulate the sale, prescription, and administration of drugs in furtherance of public health and safety, including requiring approval by designated authorities before cancer-treatment claims may be lawfully made.

## Conclusion

The court held that neither the federal nor the California constitutional right of privacy protects access to unapproved cancer drugs such as laetrile; accordingly, the statutory prohibition on prescribing or selling such drugs for cancer treatment was sustained under rational basis review, and the convictions were affirmed.


People v. Privitera, 591 P.2d 919 (Cal. 1979)