• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

rivrrat said:
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.


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?


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.


Your opinion cannot offend me.


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/tir_05_1_tabarrok.pdf
Uncommon Knowledge: TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism | Hoover Institution
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/21329.pdf
Click to expand...

So your way abolishes the FDA and creates another one. Fine. I'm not arguing whether or not the FDA is beaurcratic. One way or another, drugs need to be safety tested. If you want to "start over," fine. But it won't take long for pharma to have the new guys in their pockets either. Right now, the FDA's the best we've got. They are not death panels. Insurance companies are not death panels. UHC doesn't create them. Get real.
 
Crunch said:
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? :roll:
Click to expand...

Such an emotional argument, playing to people's fears. They do not decide if your life is worth saving. They decide whether the side effects, dangers, and YES, costs are of real benefit both to a patient and to society.

Answer me this: We can put someone on full comprehensive life support and keep them "alive" until they dry up and blow away. Does that mean we should do it?
 
MaggieD said:
Such an emotional argument, playing to people's fears. They do not decide if your life is worth saving. They decide whether the side effects, dangers, and YES, costs are of real benefit both to a patient and to society.

Answer me this: We can put someone on full comprehensive life support and keep them "alive" until they dry up and blow away. Does that mean we should do it?
Click to expand...

We will keep people alive on life support but deny them drugs? That makes no sense.
 
ptif219 said:
We will keep people alive on life support but deny them drugs? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Only harmful dugs are banned. Others are available if your doctor prescribes them -- even for off-label use.
 
MaggieD said:
Only harmful dugs are banned. Others are available if your doctor prescribes them -- even for off-label use.
Click to expand...

Wrong drugs shown effective in other countries take years to be approved by the FDA
 
MaggieD said:
So your way abolishes the FDA and creates another one. Fine. I'm not arguing whether or not the FDA is beaurcratic. One way or another, drugs need to be safety tested. If you want to "start over," fine. But it won't take long for pharma to have the new guys in their pockets either. Right now, the FDA's the best we've got. They are not death panels. Insurance companies are not death panels. UHC doesn't create them. Get real.
Click to expand...


Tested or not, the drugs should be available for people to use at their discretion. It's no one's business but MINE if I take a drug that might kill me. The difference between a govt entity and a private entity is that the govt entity can forbid access, and the private entity merely informs the consumer. That's a HUGE difference.

When the FDA refuses to approve, or even bans medication that can save lives, then yes.. they are operating like a death panel. Especially when they do it because the drug is expensive. (and it's expense is in large part due to the FDA themselves)

From John Stossel's blog:

Who gets to control what you put into your body? In what sense are you free if you can’t decide what medicines you will take?

Bruce Tower has prostate cancer. He wanted to take a drug that showed promise against his cancer, but the FDA would not allow it. One bureaucrat told him the government was protecting him from dangerous side effects. Tower’s outraged response was: “Side effects, who cares? Every treatment I’ve had I’ve suffered from side-effects. If I’m terminal it should be my option to endure any side-effects.”

Of course it should be his option. Why, in our “free” country, do Americans meekly stand aside and let the state limit our choices, even when we are dying ?
 
rivrrat said:
Tested or not, the drugs should be available for people to use at their discretion. It's no one's business but MINE if I take a drug that might kill me. The difference between a govt entity and a private entity is that the govt entity can forbid access, and the private entity merely informs the consumer. That's a HUGE difference.

When the FDA refuses to approve, or even bans medication that can save lives, then yes.. they are operating like a death panel. Especially when they do it because the drug is expensive. (and it's expense is in large part due to the FDA themselves)

From John Stossel's blog:

Who gets to control what you put into your body? In what sense are you free if you can’t decide what medicines you will take?

Bruce Tower has prostate cancer. He wanted to take a drug that showed promise against his cancer, but the FDA would not allow it. One bureaucrat told him the government was protecting him from dangerous side effects. Tower’s outraged response was: “Side effects, who cares? Every treatment I’ve had I’ve suffered from side-effects. If I’m terminal it should be my option to endure any side-effects.”

Of course it should be his option. Why, in our “free” country, do Americans meekly stand aside and let the state limit our choices, even when we are dying ?
Click to expand...

This thread is not about that. This thread is about the FDA saying that a particular drug doesn't provide sufficient benefit for it to be considered standard treatment for breast cancer. You wanna' take it? You can. It's not prohibited. If your doctor wants you to have it, you can have it. Soooo??? If you want to debate the FDA itself, start a new thread. I'd probably be on your side of the argument.
 
It's my understanding that the drug's approval was lifted because it didn't live up to the claims of the manufacturers. It increases toxicity in the body, it doesn't extend life all that much, and the opportunity cost of creating it is high. Removing the approval just creates more incentive to create a better version that actually works. If a drug isn't effective then it shouldn't receive public endorsement. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand.

Even though the FDA has become corrupt in recent times, I don't think it is totally useless. In fact, I think it's not doing enough. The number of FDA inspections of products per year has dropped sharply in the past decade. It's becoming more slack, which is creating more health risks. Some studies put the annual death rate from prescription drugs at over 100,000, and that's just concerning people who actually follow the directions.
 
Orion said:
It's my understanding that the drug's approval was lifted because it didn't live up to the claims of the manufacturers. It increases toxicity in the body, it doesn't extend life all that much, and the opportunity cost of creating it is high. Removing the approval just creates more incentive to create a better version that actually works. If a drug isn't effective then it shouldn't receive public endorsement. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand.

Even though the FDA has become corrupt in recent times, I don't think it is totally useless. In fact, I think it's not doing enough. The number of FDA inspections of products per year has dropped sharply in the past decade. It's becoming more slack, which is creating more health risks. Some studies put the annual death rate from prescription drugs at over 100,000, and that's just concerning people who actually follow the directions.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. They don't do enough. Vitamin supplements are a multi-billion-dollar industry in the U.S. Outrageous claims abound. Supposed diet products -- another scam. While there's a sucker born every minute, making false health claims keeps people from seeking real treatment, making real lifestyle changes and, in worst cases, some of these products can be very harmful.. Or do I really HAVE a ten-year-old cornflake in my colon?????
 
MaggieD said:
I agree with you. They don't do enough. Vitamin supplements are a multi-billion-dollar industry in the U.S. Outrageous claims abound. Supposed diet products -- another scam. While there's a sucker born every minute, making false health claims keeps people from seeking real treatment, making real lifestyle changes and, in worst cases, some of these products can be very harmful.. Or do I really HAVE a ten-year-old cornflake in my colon?????
Click to expand...

We actually don't agree. People can make false health claims all they want, as long as the product is not harming anyone. And people can use the tort system to take companies to the task for making big claims. What I expect the FDA to do is actually remove drugs from the shelves that are proven to be actively harmful. But "harmful" aspects are often couched in the "side effect" terminology. It's not a side effect, it's an effect. Subtle, but big difference.
 
Orion said:
We actually don't agree. People can make false health claims all they want, as long as the product is not harming anyone. And people can use the tort system to take companies to the task for making big claims. What I expect the FDA to do is actually remove drugs from the shelves that are proven to be actively harmful. But "harmful" aspects are often couched in the "side effect" terminology. It's not a side effect, it's an effect. Subtle, but big difference.
Click to expand...

Yeah, then we don't agree. I think the Food & Drug Administration should tackle these products. They do when they step over invisible lines making too outrageous a claim. I'd just like them to move the lines. ;-)
 
MaggieD said:
This thread is not about that. This thread is about the FDA saying that a particular drug doesn't provide sufficient benefit for it to be considered standard treatment for breast cancer. You wanna' take it? You can. It's not prohibited. If your doctor wants you to have it, you can have it. Soooo??? If you want to debate the FDA itself, start a new thread. I'd probably be on your side of the argument.
Click to expand...

Sometimes thread topics grow as the thread goes on. This may have started specifically about a particular drug, but IMO, what it's really about is the FDA's long standing history of delaying and/or banning drugs for illegitimate reasons.
 
donc said:
"they are, uhhhh, errr, hmmmmmm",.....Insurance companies. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Uhhhhhh Don, did you see this or jump in without looking?

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. Whether or not insurers would approve payment is a different story, considering that Avastin is a $50,000 plus a year drug.
Click to expand...

FDA Reviews Roche's Drug Avastin for Use Against Breast Cancer - DailyFinance
 
MaggieD said:
Such an emotional argument, playing to people's fears. They do not decide if your life is worth saving. They decide whether the side effects, dangers, and YES, costs are of real benefit both to a patient and to society.

Answer me this: We can put someone on full comprehensive life support and keep them "alive" until they dry up and blow away. Does that mean we should do it?
Click to expand...

That would depend on the persons wishes don't you think? Or would you rather some faceless bureaucrat bean counter have control over those types of decisions in your life?
 
Crunch said:
That would depend on the persons wishes don't you think? Or would you rather some faceless bureaucrat bean counter have control over those types of decisions in your life?
Click to expand...

Faceless beaurocrats already have control over those types of decisions. They work for insurance companies.
 
Ockham said:
They also work for Medicare - who also is toying with denying treatment based on costs and age.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...r-treatment-may-not-covered-medicare-1st.html
Click to expand...

I include Medicare when I say insurance companies -- that's what Medicare is, de facto. Medicare's always done it. So have all the others.

If I could vote a Best Answer on that thread, it would be this:

RightinNYC said:
It's not possible to have a healthcare system where everything is paid for regardless of how expensive it is. That's something that neither side wants to admit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I include Medicare when I say insurance companies -- that's what Medicare is, de facto. Medicare's always done it. So have all the others.
Click to expand...

Apparently, they've never done it yet with a Cancer treatment, as it's stated in the DP link, this would be a first. Also, Medicare is government --- not private insurance. There's a difference, while I see the advantage of lumping everything together in a simplistic way.
 
MaggieD said:
Yeah, then we don't agree. I think the Food & Drug Administration should tackle these products. They do when they step over invisible lines making too outrageous a claim. I'd just like them to move the lines. ;-)
Click to expand...

That sets up science as being the single determiner of "effective" medicine and I don't agree with that. There was medicine before science and there will be medicine during and after science. Traditonally knowledge is older than that, and many other systems don't rely on empiricism like the FDA does to establish what is useful for healing. My entire profession, for the most part, is based on non-scientific inductive reasoning that occurred over thousands of years of clinical trials. If the Canadian equivalent of the FDA started saying that I can't use herbs until each one of them (and there are thousands) are tested for efficacy, then all natural health care practitioners in Canada would disappear overnight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom