Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 107

Thread: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

  1. #41
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Yes, and apparently you would have the FDA stay out of the review process and just let "us" decide. Again I say, really?
    For the most part, yes. Reviewing is one thing, giving an opinion is one thing, banning a drug is entirely another. As I said, I don't know what their decision was on this drug, if it's going to be a ban or not. But they have a history of banning drugs that actually ****ing work.

    They are a political organization, not a medical one. They base their decisions not on public welfare, but on public opinion. They delay access to drugs that could save people's lives, and/or ban access altogether.

    The FDA is a huge part of the reason for the expense of most drugs too. The hurdles that companies have to jump through means they spend millions they shouldn't have to spend. That cost is passed onto us.


    If what you say is true, then the doctors were at fault for not prescribing the best treatment. Now, if you're talking "overkill," that's something else. If you're talking "triage," that's something else. Example please.
    "Bare minimum" Get them stable, send them home. They treated the symptoms, not the cause because Medicare wouldn't pay for this test or that test unless it was under specific conditions. Triage is different, that's not withholding care, that's postponing it. Overkill is different too, I saw that as well with certain insurances. They ran every ****ing test they could.

    "I want to take that drug. I don't care if it works or not. It's my decision." Ridiculous. Patients aren't doctors. They are spoon-fed information by their healthcare professionals to lead them to the doctor's decision. That's the facts.
    For the most part, yes. It's their decision if they want to pay for a treatment, or not receive a treatment at all. They are given options, and THEY choose what option they want to do. It should never be up to the government to decide how much a life is worth and if an extra month is worth it or not. It's up to the patient.

  2. #42
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    For the most part, yes. Reviewing is one thing, giving an opinion is one thing, banning a drug is entirely another. As I said, I don't know what their decision was on this drug, if it's going to be a ban or not. But they have a history of banning drugs that actually ****ing work.
    Such as? There is a difference between "working" and risk out-weighing benefit.

    They are a political organization, not a medical one. They base their decisions not on public welfare, but on public opinion. They delay access to drugs that could save people's lives, and/or ban access altogether.
    Links? Or just an opinion?

    The FDA is a huge part of the reason for the expense of most drugs too. The hurdles that companies have to jump through means they spend millions they shouldn't have to spend. That cost is passed onto us.
    That's soooo out there. It means that the drugs that are approved have been 'supposedly' proven to be safe and effective. Yikes!

    "Bare minimum" Get them stable, send them home. They treated the symptoms, not the cause because Medicare wouldn't pay for this test or that test unless it was under specific conditions. Triage is different, that's not withholding care, that's postponing it. Overkill is different too, I saw that as well with certain insurances. They ran every ****ing test they could.
    No offense, but this general example sounds kind of lame.

    For the most part, yes. It's their decision if they want to pay for a treatment, or not receive a treatment at all. They are given options, and THEY choose what option they want to do. It should never be up to the government to decide how much a life is worth and if an extra month is worth it or not. It's up to the patient.
    Your way opens the healthcare market wide open to charletans and frauds. Back to the medicine wagon and their secret tonics. If patients don't ask the right questions, they don't even know how to make a decision. They are led to certain pre-ordained treatments by their doctors. And he's led to them by the fear of malpractice lawsuits and his discomfort with calling a spade a spade. We abhor telling people there is really no hope. As well we should.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #43
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Why does it seem we may be headed in that direction? Because of this thread? There are very few drugs that the FDA makes outright illegal to dispense. Those things are prohibited for safety reasons.
    "Lawyers who want to sue drug companies will be drooling over the news that the FDA has “certified” a 2009 letter sent anonymously by FDA staff to President Obama describing “systemic corruption and wrongdoing that permeates all levels of FDA.”

    "The FDA’s official recognition of the letter means that lawyers who want to use it to demonstrate that the FDA isn’t perfect won’t have to go through weeks of tedious discovery demands to find someone at the FDA who can officially say, “Yup, we sent that.” That’s going to be a headache for drug companies who often defend their drugs in court by saying, “Hey, the FDA said this product was fine and we did everything they asked — so it’s not fair to hold us responsible.”

    FDA “Corruption” Letter Authenticated: Lawyers, Start Your Engines! | BNET

    The FDA is a highly questionable organization with lots of ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
    Their approval and safety decisions, do not comfort me one bit.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #44
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    So you agree with death panels?
    I said that was pure cost effectiveness.
    Something the government shouldn't be doing.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #45
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    "Lawyers who want to sue drug companies will be drooling over the news that the FDA has “certified” a 2009 letter sent anonymously by FDA staff to President Obama describing “systemic corruption and wrongdoing that permeates all levels of FDA.”

    "The FDA’s official recognition of the letter means that lawyers who want to use it to demonstrate that the FDA isn’t perfect won’t have to go through weeks of tedious discovery demands to find someone at the FDA who can officially say, “Yup, we sent that.” That’s going to be a headache for drug companies who often defend their drugs in court by saying, “Hey, the FDA said this product was fine and we did everything they asked — so it’s not fair to hold us responsible.”

    FDA “Corruption” Letter Authenticated: Lawyers, Start Your Engines! | BNET

    The FDA is a highly questionable organization with lots of ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
    Their approval and safety decisions, do not comfort me one bit.
    I wonder how effective that letter will be considering it's anonymous. It's no surprise to anybody they're in bed with pharma. Those anonymous drafters are cowards. With all the whistleblower laws in place, there would be absolutely no reason for them to withhold their names. Makes me doubt its legitimacy. I also wonder what they mean by the FDA has legitimitzed the letter? That it's really on their stationery? Weird.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  6. #46
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Such as? There is a difference between "working" and risk out-weighing benefit.
    They should really have no say at all, the FDA shouldn't even exist. But the most they should do is give opinion. Not ban, and not delay access.

    Links? Or just an opinion?
    You need a link to know that the FDA is a bunch of bureaucrats? That the FDA delays access to lifesaving drugs sometimes by 10 years due to their absolutely retardedly rigid protocols?

    That's soooo out there. It means that the drugs that are approved have been 'supposedly' proven to be safe and effective. Yikes!
    Supposedly. That's the key word.

    Here's the thing: We don't need the FDA to do that. The FDA worries so much about some person dying and then they get a bad rap that they make it super expensive, tedious, and time consuming to get any drug approved. It's ridiculous.

    No offense, but this general example sounds kind of lame.
    Your opinion cannot offend me.

    Your way opens the healthcare market wide open to charletans and frauds. Back to the medicine wagon and their secret tonics. If patients don't ask the right questions, they don't even know how to make a decision. They are led to certain pre-ordained treatments by their doctors. And he's led to them by the fear of malpractice lawsuits and his discomfort with calling a spade a spade. We abhor telling people there is really no hope. As well we should.
    Yeah, my way puts the patients back as the responsible party for their own health. If they buy the snake oil and die, that's really no one's fault but theirs. Their health is THEIR responsibility.

    My way also opens the door for third party, non-partisan, non-political, non-bureaucrat agencies to test and give opinions about drugs. It lets the consumer do research and gather information for themselves. It lets the consumer decide for themselves. My way doesn't assume that everyone is a ****ing idiot incapable of reading and listening.

    My way also opens the door for more direct competition.

    If you want to do some reading, do a google search on "abolish the FDA". But here's a couple links to get your started, some by economists, some docs, etc.

    Economists Against the FDA: Publications: The Independent Institute
    Abolish the FDA!! by Jim Grichar
    Hands off my Meds « John Stossel
    http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/t...1_tabarrok.pdf
    Uncommon Knowledge: TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism | Hoover Institution
    http://www.heartland.org/custom/semo.../pdf/21329.pdf

  7. #47
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    I often can't believe the shelf life of stupid arguments. How can the death panel nonsense still be used by any thinking person?


    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #48
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Here we go again.

    Cost simply has to be taken into account when analyzing the benefits of a drug. Combine a cost of 'on average' $83,000 to treat people in this late-stage cancer by its being found to only extend life by one month can only mean that pharma's getting rich. That last month? It's going to be hell anyway.
    Hmmmmmmm.....

    Last month, the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee sifted through data from two subsequent studies. These showed that progression-free survival time ranged from about one month to nearly three months -- even less than the original study -- without extending patients' overall survival. Further, with known risks such as gastrointestinal perforations, bleeding and blood clots, the risk-benefit may not be favorable, the panel said. The panel voted 12 to one to remove the advanced breast cancer indication from Avastin's U.S. label.

    Roche doesn't agree, saying the studies showed the drug reduced the risk of progression or death by 31% to 52%. The agency is set to decide the matter by Sept. 17.

    On Monday, Rob Stein of the Washington Post noted cost considerations may play a part in the FDA's decision:

    The debate over Avastin, prescribed to about 17,500 women with breast cancer a year, has become entangled in the politically explosive struggle over medical spending and effectiveness that flared during the battle over health-care reform: How should the government balance protecting patients and controlling costs without restricting access to cutting-edge, and often costly, treatments?He adds: "The FDA is not supposed to consider costs in its decisions, but if the agency rescinds approval, insurers are likely to stop paying for treatment." Doctors are allowed to prescribe treatment for off-label uses, so they may continue to use Avastin to treat breast cancer, even if the FDA revokes the approval. [/u]Whether or not insurers would approve payment is a different story, considering that Avastin is a $50,000 plus a year drug.[/u]
    FDA Reviews Roche's Drug Avastin for Use Against Breast Cancer - DailyFinance

    Looks political to me.... and yes, if the FDA approves it, private insurance companies pay for it.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  9. #49
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Of course they'll say no if the govt forbids the drug approval via the FDA.


    Can't. The FDA removed approval for the drug.

    And, this whole "spend your money not mine" is the whole ****ing reason why people don't want public healthcare. THIS is precisely the reason. They will put a price on everyone's head. They already DO.


    It's not anyone's place to determine that but the patient. Most assuredly not the government's job. Which is why so many of us oppose govt provided healthcare. Because THEN is will become their job to determine if we're worthy of living any longer.

    That's absolutely correct.... but those panels that decide whether your are worth the cost of saving are not death panels, they are, uhhhh, errr, hmmmmmm, for your own good?
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  10. #50
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    That's absolutely correct.... but those panels that decide whether your are worth the cost of saving are not death panels, they are, uhhhh, errr, hmmmmmm, for your own good?
    "they are, uhhhh, errr, hmmmmmm",.....Insurance companies.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •