Death Panel's First Murder

[redrumjuice]

The Death Panel's First Murder

[Duchess Jack]

well, let's get rid of the FDA then. Food and drugs were much safer before them anyway.

[bpwallace49]

Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute, a senior fellow at the Social Security Institute, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He is author of The Obamacare Disaster, from the Heartland Institute, and President Obama's Tax Piracy.

 

Clearly this unbaiased bastion of health care advice is more credible than the Food and Drug Adminstration. I must have missed his MD certifiication somewhere . . .

[Caveman_Nick]

well, let's get rid of the FDA then. Food and drugs were much safer before them anyway.

 

Seriously, though....if a person can take a drug to try and save their life or just flat out die, how can the risk of taking the drug be too great? This is something I have always wondered about the FDA and drug approval/experimental treatments.

[bpwallace49]

Seriously, though....if a person can take a drug to try and save their life or just flat out die, how can the risk of taking the drug be too great? This is something I have always wondered about the FDA and drug approval/experimental treatments.

 

If the drug's side effects kill you quicker than the disease, how does that help, exactly?

[Perchoutofwater]

If the drug's side effects kill you quicker than the disease, how does that help, exactly?

 

I guess it would depend on quality of life? If the drug shortens your life but provides better quality of life, that might be a trade off many would make.

[redrumjuice]

If the drug's side effects kill you quicker than the disease, how does that help, exactly?

 

Why is it your business?

[Controller]

Why is it your business?

 

Good answer.

[WaterMan]

The comments in the article are hilarious.

[untateve]

Why is it your business?

 

It amazes me that there is no one you shirk from exploiting in order to perpetuate your shtick. From our military to people with serious illnesses.

[yo mama]

I think we can all agree that we don't want the government or corporate America experimenting on humans. So the FDA has a point.

 

On the other hand, donating one's body to science after death is noble. Assuming a terminally ill person is sane, and has obtained sufficient advice from their own doctor, I don't see the problem will allowing that terminally ill person to donate their body to the advancement of science a little sooner. There might only be a minor chance the treatment improves what is left of their life. But there is a far greater chance that allowing such treatments would help advance medical science more quickly in a way that will improve the future lives of others. But IMO, the would-be patient shouldn't have to pay for such treatments. Otherwise, you'd have a real problem of snake oil salesmen peddling false hope to the desperate.

Edited December 22, 2010 by yo mama

[Clubfoothead]

The FDA did not even want the drug indicated for breast cancer patients from the start. Despite this, it was allowed to be indicated for breast cancer in 2008. Despite 2 years on the market, there's no indication the drug works.

 

The two years on the market does; however, indicate that there are deadly side effects; that the side effects can actually interfere with the effectiveness of the chemotherapy; and, that there is no indication the medication helps improve the quality or length of life for the cancer patients. Accordingly, it is no longer indicated for breast cancer patients.

 

I guess if I had advanced breast cancer, this would be good to know given it costs $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 per year.

[redrumjuice]

The FDA did not even want the drug indicated for breast cancer patients from the start. Despite this, it was allowed to be indicated for breast cancer in 2008. Despite 2 years on the market, there's no indication the drug works.

 

The two years on the market does; however, indicate that there are deadly side effects; that the side effects can actually interfere with the effectiveness of the chemotherapy; and, that there is no indication the medication helps improve the quality or length of life for the cancer patients. Accordingly, it is no longer indicated for breast cancer patients.

 

I guess if I had advanced breast cancer, this would be good to know given it costs $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 per year.

 

Did you sleep in a Holiday Inn Last night?

[Clubfoothead]

Did you sleep in a Holiday Inn Last night?

 

 

I went all out and went to the FDA's web site and read their statement. They have clinical studies to back it up too.

 

And get this, this is a power the FDA has with or without Obama's healthcare reforms. Besides, if it is indicated for breast cancer treatment then Medicare and Medicaid can probably be expected to cover the expense. I'd think a deficit hawk like yourself would not support your tax dollars picking up the tab for these drugs considering they don't seem to work.

 

For you more thinking, less typing.

[detlef]

 

I went all out and went to the FDA's web site and read their statement. They have clinical studies to back it up too.

 

And get this, this is a power the FDA has with or without Obama's healthcare reforms. Besides, if it is indicated for breast cancer treatment then Medicare and Medicaid can probably be expected to cover the expense. I'd think a deficit hawk like yourself would not support your tax dollars picking up the tab for these drugs considering they don't seem to work.

 

For you more thinking, less typing.

[isleseeya]

FDA is the biggest mafia since the Gambino family was being led by John Gotti

[Redfish]

 

I went all out and went to the FDA's web site and read their statement. They have clinical studies to back it up too.

 

I have a dear friend whose wife, in their opinions, has survived breast cancer for many years directly and completely because of Avastin. His anger right now is overwhelming. I can't testify to the exact reason they believe the Avastin is the key, but there is no doubt in their minds.

[Pope Flick]

Because death panels never existed in the 'free market.' Edited December 23, 2010 by Pope Flick

[redrumjuice]

Because death panels never existed in the 'free market.'

 

So you now agree that there ARE in fact death panels?

 

Nice of you to come around.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

So you now agree that there ARE in fact death panels?

 

Nice of you to come around.

 

So originally you idiots on the right described end of life counsel as 'death panels' because you imagined some slippery slope where these doctors were going to be pushing patients to make one or the other decision. Now I see you have moved the goal posts, and the new Obama Death Panels is the FDA doing it's mandated job in a way that you disaprove of.

Sounds to me like you hateful little people have just found a really good fear mongering phrase and are now ready to use it for every and anything.

Wouldn't be surprised to see you characterize the next case of medical malpractice as a death panel.

Pathetic.

I think my favourite part is a right wing yahoo decrying the paternalism of an FDA review board that does not include a single cancer patient.

Since when did the right become the PC party? You yell and demean 9/11 widows because what rights do they have in determining how a 9/11 tribute should be built, and what expertise do they have to dare to demand a full investigation as to the origins of 9/11? and NOW you guys demand that cancer review boards include cancer patients?

 

The FDA's legal mandate must be changed so that it determines only whether a drug is safe in considering approval, not whether it is effective as well, as required by current law.

Love this conclusion. Yay free market at all costs. And yet the whole article is decrying the role of outside influences on decision making by doctors. What? Don't think this would have a deliterious effect on doctors and patients decisions?

pathetic

[caddyman]

So originally you idiots on the right described end of life counsel as 'death panels' because you imagined some slippery slope where these doctors were going to be pushing patients to make one or the other decision. Now I see you have moved the goal posts, and the new Obama Death Panels is the FDA doing it's mandated job in a way that you disaprove of.

Sounds to me like you hateful little people have just found a really good fear mongering phrase and are now ready to use it for every and anything.

Wouldn't be surprised to see you characterize the next case of medical malpractice as a death panel.

Pathetic.

I think my favourite part is a right wing yahoo decrying the paternalism of an FDA review board that does not include a single cancer patient.

Since when did the right become the PC party? You yell and demean 9/11 widows because what rights do they have in determining how a 9/11 tribute should be built, and what expertise do they have to dare to demand a full investigation as to the origins of 9/11? and NOW you guys demand that cancer review boards include cancer patients?

 

 

Love this conclusion. Yay free market at all costs. And yet the whole article is decrying the role of outside influences on decision making by doctors. What? Don't think this would have a deliterious effect on doctors and patients decisions?

pathetic

 

 

Thank you Liberal IDIOT!

[Duchess Jack]

Sounds to me like you hateful little people have just found a really good fear mongering phrase and are now ready to use it for every and anything.

 

Jamming it (enter anything: health care, START treaty, etc) down our throats!!

[Scooby's Hubby]

sometimes (like almost always) I wish that Sarah Palin would have never opened her mouth (insert jokes here). and bashing Obama or using scare tactics won't get you any new votes. I am glad to be a Republican who would never vote for her in our Primary. What Governor would have quit office early? Bridge to nowhere? She kinda started this 'death panel' label. She is just a media whore and I hope to be rid of her by 2012.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Scooby's Hubby

[redrumjuice]

So originally you idiots on the right described end of life counsel as 'death panels' because you imagined some slippery slope where these doctors were going to be pushing patients to make one or the other decision.

 

You must not be familiar with the legislation. They have guidelines on what is acceptable and what is not depending on the future quality of life. For Example, if you are 65, and a kidney transplant may give you 5 more years, they say it's not worth it. A decision make by a government bureaucrat. You die.

 

If that's not a death panel, what is it?

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

You must not be familiar with the legislation. They have guidelines on what is acceptable and what is not depending on the future quality of life. For Example, if you are 65, and a kidney transplant may give you 5 more years, they say it's not worth it. A decision make by a government bureaucrat. You die.

 

If that's not a death panel, what is it?

 

So the death panels are the possibility of getting end of life counsel as dubbed by Sarah Palin

EXCEP when it is the FDA doing its mandated job, like it has for decades, but now we call it a death panel and blame it on Obama

EXCEPT when it is accountants doing actuarial work in terms of treatment as has been the case for decades with health insurance (which you yourself acknowledge earlier0

Does that about cover it, or is there yet another definition of death panel that you are saving for us?

 

The tea party mentality and suspicion of government has really gotten so ridiculous that some of you are arguing against a regulatory body for medication. What next, let the market decide wether lead toys should be sold? Hey why do we have board certified doctors? Let the market decide! Just great.