Comments on: Dying for Drugs http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Steve Olson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10488 Steve Olson Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:24:37 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10488 When I read stories like this, I can't understand why everyone isn't a libertarian at least in ideology. I can see for example why a public school administrator isn't a libertarian, but if he read something like this, I think the selfishness of his protectionist position whould hit home. They always claim the are protecting the patient, or the student, or the public as a whole, but what they don't tell you about is the pain and suffering the protection is causing others. When I read stories like this, I can’t understand why everyone isn’t a libertarian at least in ideology. I can see for example why a public school administrator isn’t a libertarian, but if he read something like this, I think the selfishness of his protectionist position whould hit home. They always claim the are protecting the patient, or the student, or the public as a whole, but what they don’t tell you about is the pain and suffering the protection is causing others.

]]> By: Steve Olson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10495 Steve Olson Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:24:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10495 When I read stories like this, I can't understand why everyone isn't a libertarian at least in ideology. I can see for example why a public school administrator isn't a libertarian, but if he read something like this, I think the selfishness of his protectionist position whould hit home. They always claim the are protecting the patient, or the student, or the public as a whole, but what they don't tell you about is the pain and suffering the protection is causing others. When I read stories like this, I can’t understand why everyone isn’t a libertarian at least in ideology. I can see for example why a public school administrator isn’t a libertarian, but if he read something like this, I think the selfishness of his protectionist position whould hit home. They always claim the are protecting the patient, or the student, or the public as a whole, but what they don’t tell you about is the pain and suffering the protection is causing others.

]]> By: Anton Sherwood http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10487 Anton Sherwood Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:04:56 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10487 Someone could write a story about suicide bombings of FDA offices by terminal patients. This thought is shared for entertainment purposes only, of course. Someone could write a story about suicide bombings of FDA offices by terminal patients. This thought is shared for entertainment purposes only, of course.

]]> By: Anonymous http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10489 Anonymous Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:04:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10489 Someone could write a story about suicide bombings of FDA offices by terminal patients. This thought is shared for entertainment purposes only, of course. Someone could write a story about suicide bombings of FDA offices by terminal patients. This thought is shared for entertainment purposes only, of course.

]]> By: jen http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10486 jen Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:14:33 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10486 Yes, it is a moot point if you can't otherwise afford them. Also, something the article doesn't mention is that if terminally ill people are eventually allowed to take the experimental drugs, it is likely that they would have to pay for those as well. It's unlikely that anyone not in a clinical trial would get them for free. Then they have the same problem that the insured but denied have- if you can afford to pay for it out of pocket, you might live. If not, well then that's too bad. The constitutional argument has got to be troubling for insurance companies because if there is a constitutional right to experimental but potentially life saving treatments, then some subscribers would no doubt challenge the legality of the clauses that let insurers of the hook for what they deem to be experimental treatment. Interesting article! Yes, it is a moot point if you can’t otherwise afford them. Also, something the article doesn’t mention is that if terminally ill people are eventually allowed to take the experimental drugs, it is likely that they would have to pay for those as well. It’s unlikely that anyone not in a clinical trial would get them for free. Then they have the same problem that the insured but denied have- if you can afford to pay for it out of pocket, you might live. If not, well then that’s too bad.

The constitutional argument has got to be troubling for insurance companies because if there is a constitutional right to experimental but potentially life saving treatments, then some subscribers would no doubt challenge the legality of the clauses that let insurers of the hook for what they deem to be experimental treatment.

Interesting article!

]]> By: jen http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10491 jen Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:14:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10491 Yes, it is a moot point if you can't otherwise afford them. Also, something the article doesn't mention is that if terminally ill people are eventually allowed to take the experimental drugs, it is likely that they would have to pay for those as well. It's unlikely that anyone not in a clinical trial would get them for free. Then they have the same problem that the insured but denied have- if you can afford to pay for it out of pocket, you might live. If not, well then that's too bad. The constitutional argument has got to be troubling for insurance companies because if there is a constitutional right to experimental but potentially life saving treatments, then some subscribers would no doubt challenge the legality of the clauses that let insurers of the hook for what they deem to be experimental treatment. Interesting article! Yes, it is a moot point if you can’t otherwise afford them. Also, something the article doesn’t mention is that if terminally ill people are eventually allowed to take the experimental drugs, it is likely that they would have to pay for those as well. It’s unlikely that anyone not in a clinical trial would get them for free. Then they have the same problem that the insured but denied have- if you can afford to pay for it out of pocket, you might live. If not, well then that’s too bad.

The constitutional argument has got to be troubling for insurance companies because if there is a constitutional right to experimental but potentially life saving treatments, then some subscribers would no doubt challenge the legality of the clauses that let insurers of the hook for what they deem to be experimental treatment.

Interesting article!

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10485 Will Wilkinson Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:35:25 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10485 Jen, I think the important difference is that in the case of FDA-approved drugs not covered by insurance, it is not against the law to take them. That may be a moot point if you can't otherwise afford them, yes. But at least they are not forbidden. Jen, I think the important difference is that in the case of FDA-approved drugs not covered by insurance, it is not against the law to take them. That may be a moot point if you can’t otherwise afford them, yes. But at least they are not forbidden.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10490 Will Wilkinson Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:35:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10490 Jen, I think the important difference is that in the case of FDA-approved drugs not covered by insurance, it is not against the law to take them. That may be a moot point if you can't otherwise afford them, yes. But at least they are not forbidden. Jen, I think the important difference is that in the case of FDA-approved drugs not covered by insurance, it is not against the law to take them. That may be a moot point if you can’t otherwise afford them, yes. But at least they are not forbidden.

]]> By: jen http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10484 jen Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:06:39 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10484 It is heartbreaking, but not any more heartbreaking than when insurance companies deny coverage for treatments because they are considered "experimental" by the company even though already FDA approved. People regularly die as a result of that as well. It is heartbreaking, but not any more heartbreaking than when insurance companies deny coverage for treatments because they are considered “experimental” by the company even though already FDA approved. People regularly die as a result of that as well.

]]> By: jen http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10493 jen Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:06:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10493 It is heartbreaking, but not any more heartbreaking than when insurance companies deny coverage for treatments because they are considered "experimental" by the company even though already FDA approved. People regularly die as a result of that as well. It is heartbreaking, but not any more heartbreaking than when insurance companies deny coverage for treatments because they are considered “experimental” by the company even though already FDA approved. People regularly die as a result of that as well.

]]> By: Bill Wyatt http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10483 Bill Wyatt Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:03:16 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10483 The problem is the efficacy requirement itself. The article never explains why efficacy (as opposed to basic safety) should be a concern of the FDA at all. That a $10B clinical testing industry and its regulatory enforcers think so is not a good enough reason. This is particularly so as evidence rolls in that personal biology influences drug response, meaning that widespread use of new drugs may be important to identifying the subgroup of patients for which it is effective. Treatments to which even large numbers of patients do not respond are not necessarily "snake oil." The problem is the efficacy requirement itself. The article never explains why efficacy (as opposed to basic safety) should be a concern of the FDA at all. That a $10B clinical testing industry and its regulatory enforcers think so is not a good enough reason. This is particularly so as evidence rolls in that personal biology influences drug response, meaning that widespread use of new drugs may be important to identifying the subgroup of patients for which it is effective. Treatments to which even large numbers of patients do not respond are not necessarily “snake oil.”

]]> By: Bill Wyatt http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10494 Bill Wyatt Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:03:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10494 The problem is the efficacy requirement itself. The article never explains why efficacy (as opposed to basic safety) should be a concern of the FDA at all. That a $10B clinical testing industry and its regulatory enforcers think so is not a good enough reason. This is particularly so as evidence rolls in that personal biology influences drug response, meaning that widespread use of new drugs may be important to identifying the subgroup of patients for which it is effective. Treatments to which even large numbers of patients do not respond are not necessarily "snake oil." The problem is the efficacy requirement itself. The article never explains why efficacy (as opposed to basic safety) should be a concern of the FDA at all. That a $10B clinical testing industry and its regulatory enforcers think so is not a good enough reason. This is particularly so as evidence rolls in that personal biology influences drug response, meaning that widespread use of new drugs may be important to identifying the subgroup of patients for which it is effective. Treatments to which even large numbers of patients do not respond are not necessarily “snake oil.”

]]> By: Brian Moore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10482 Brian Moore Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:58:01 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10482 Wow, that was a really good article. Wow, that was a really good article.

]]> By: Brian Patrick Moore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10492 Brian Patrick Moore Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:58:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/07/25/dying-for-drugs/#comment-10492 Wow, that was a really good article. Wow, that was a really good article.

]]>