posted
Yes, they may have lowered the age to 18. I'm certainly glad my friend got one then because they caught the cancer! As far as I know she had no family history either.
_I'm_ going to take offense at that one, seeing as I'm one of those oh-so-hated girls who doesn't have the worry about student loans and gets a nice monthly check from Mommy and Daddy for things I might want to buy. How _dare_ I.
Why is it that girls are so often portrayed as money-wasting, irresponsible skanks? I mean, the fact that they _can_ spend the money on the pills doesn't mean they _would_. I can think of much better uses for two hundred bucks.
Good, that last sentence means you're probably not spoiled. However, the truth is there are a great many who are, up to and including those who still need loans, whose parents still have debt, and who don't come from families that have a whole lot. The point isn't what tax bracket the parents are in, it's about the way a lot of people in America look at financial responsibility before their late 20's nowadays. It's an issue of malformed priorities, not picking on any subculture or social group.
And since I just jumped into the social aspect with both feet, it's worth noting that even the idea of this "morning after" pill is a symptom of the bigger problem of addressing the world with consequences as an afterthought. Sure, it's somewhat (not really, for the determined) prohibitively expensive, but if something goes OTC, expect mass-production, which leads to lower prices, which leads to higher demand, which leads to more production, etc., etc. (keep an eye on prices of other OTCs that have gone on the shelf in the last five years). There are still instances where uninformed people think taking extra birth control after missing a few days "catches things up." I know of at least one who thought they could make a positive pregnancy test go away. This patchwork mentality is no good for society, so unless there is going to be just as much spent on teaching proper usage—something not done with current birth control measures—I don't see the sense in making more options available to an overly-ignorant general population. People aren't stupid, but if the info isn't there and easily accessible (meaning you don't need internet-search skills or a qualified professional friend), then how the hell are people going to understand their options?
They're not.
I'm not saying people are stupid, and I'm not even saying whether it should or shouldn't be put over-the-counter. I'm saying I don't have enough info to make it clear one way or the other, and most of the arguments I've seen on this thread have way too much emotionally invested on both sides.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Records, yes. But do they keep images from paps? I really thought each one was looked at individually, not compared to earlier ones. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know about the HIPAA regulations, the images would have to be saved for at least seven years, rivka, while the readings would more likely be what is accessible indefinitely.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you overreacted...actually I was just really confused. The first thing I saw was your post in the catfight thread (I hadn't been around for a while) and I was like "Oh crud, what did I miss? Did I insult somebody again? And didn't she mean bi&$@, not ba&@#$*?"
One thing I'm learning since having been at Hatrack is no matter what the situation is, someone around here has been there. Like you said, you can't NOT put your opinions because someone will be hurt, but you can always try to be a little nicer about it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Condom breakage is a legitimate problem that could happen to a lot of couples, married or no. That's why I support the MAP being available by prescription. I also support the abortion pill being available by prescription because if I had a daughter who were raped I wouldn't want her to be further traumatized by a surgical abortion.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, but it's been more than seven years in my case, and it was pre-HIPAA.
In any case, do they really look at prior paps? I was under the impression that it was not a comparative thing (except to a theoretical 'good'/''bad').
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, I'm probably imposing my engineering logic on a medical issue. They may not. But they might want to know how many years of "good" paps you had and when they were before your "bad" pap.
posted
That I can't answer, rivka. I just handle the technology side for some medical offices, which is why I knew about the storage issues.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also support the abortion pill being available by prescription because if I had a daughter who were raped I wouldn't want her to be further traumatized by a surgical abortion.
It would still be tramatic and it would take much longer. The abortion pill is hard on the body, worse the further along the pregnancy. It also isn't particularly effective when taken by itself. Recommended use includes the application of prostaglandin, which I can tell you from personal experience is very much no picnic.
This info is just incase you thought that RU486 was gentler than a surgical abortion...they are both hard on the body and require time in a clinic.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Warning: Probably really offensive to some people*
The idea of a married couple accidentally getting pregnant and using the MAP, not to mention other kinds of chemical abortificants, really bothers me.
I mean, they're married.
btw, PSI, (is calling you that considered a misspelling? dangit) that is, PSI Transport, I was pregnant before I got married too. That experience underscores how I feel about this and the premarital sex issue--I know what it's like, and how stupid it was of me to engage in that kind of behavior. (Sorry, Kasie, that's how I feel. )
The concept of someone in a loving, committed relationship needing the MAP, well...that makes that relationship look less loving and committed, to my eyes. If pregnancy is such a tragedy for a relationship, maybe it's not such a nice relationship?
After all, I imagine many guys would be very happy if this drug were made OTC, because it oculd get them out of a lot of messes.
posted
Interesting, Jeniwren, though if (hopefully not) it ever happened, I would hope we'd be looking at the MAP instead.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But really that bears no relevance. Why attack me? Who cares why I do this stuff? The point is supposed to be that everyone has different levels of concern and different people are willing to take different risks. Yours is not to question why or to be snarky about it. I just don't think saying "Life is taking chances", is a very good reason to not be as safe as POSSIBLE.
What if I went to the doctor and he said "This pill may make you bleed, but hey! Life is dangerous!" C'mon.
PSI, I wasn't trying to attack your neuroses, I was just trying to point out that they are not relevant. Just because YOU don't fly because of your personal risk assessment, it doesn't mean that the GOVERNMENT should not allow planes to fly because of that risk.
I'm uncomfortable with the Government being in the position of protecting us from ourselves. It just sets off alarms, for me.
I DO find it amusing that you're pissed at me, though, since I have spent this whole thread more-or-less on YOUR side, which is one of not being comfortable with it being over-the-counter.
I wasn't meaning to use your own argument against you, just pointing out that maybe using your own behaviors as an analogy would not be the most helpful argument, all things considered.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't post with malicious intent. I was just playing around and I didn't mean to be insensitive or hit a sore spot.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A scenario where I would at least discuss it with my husband: We currently have a 9 month old, a 4 year old, and a 7 year old. More of a problem than the 9 month old is that the 4 year old is not fully potty trained. If we had condom breakage and I was likely to be fertile, I might rather make my uterus a hostile environment than enter into another pregnancy at this time. Because I have had post-partum psychosis (not the blues, but full on delusional out of it-ness) in the past, such a stressor could spell danger of abuse, especially for the 4 year old. edit: made more sense with a but
posted
I meant, to clarify, that there is a difference between "Being as safe as possible" and legislating impossible standards for safety.
It PISSES ME OFF every time I read some stupid disclaimer that 'Coffee May Be Hot' Or 'Misuse of Toothpicks May Cause Injury'. Like the governmet should be baby-proofing our lives. Oy.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not really ticked off or anything...I guess we were both making the same point!
You think my personal experience isn't relevant because that's not what the government should consider when making choices.
I think my personal experience shouldn't matter to anyone, i just figure I want to be well informed. I never said they should stop selling something because I'm neurotic, just that I should know all risks so that I can make a decision. I don't want to hear "Life happens" or anything. I want to hear as much info as I can, and I'm not happy with "I don't know".
Plus, it doesn't really matter how much on "my side" you've been, getting snarky about someone personally will almost always get you, at the least, an eye-brow raise.
posted
Sachiko, I'm with you on that -- my first husband initially wanted me to abort when I got pregnant four years into our marriage. To be honest, I was so shocked I didn't even get mad -- I just said absolutely not, no way, not even. Our son is almost 11 now.
I've read stories, however, of married women who have opted for abortion instead of having a "johnny come lately" child. I could see feeling that way, if I was looking at my teenager kids and suddenly discovered that I was pregnant at 46. (I still couldn't abort, but I could certainly see *wanting* to, despite being happily married.)
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka! That honestly terrifies me, too. I had the most awful post-partum depression after baby #2. My husband and I would both rather lose vital organs than face that again. My Doctor thinks the pregnancy may have reset my hormones permanently. Plus, the risk of it happeneing again is high.
If I found out I WAS pregnant, I'd probably make sure I had extra-close mood monitoring and stuff. But if we had a condom failure or something, I think I might consider MAP, too. I think my husband would actually lean that direction, too. Because he doesn't want his wife and children's mother in a rubber room.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, Pooka..I'm trying to tread very, very lightly here.
I know what it is to have postpartum depression; I am also trying to potty train a four year old. I have three in diapers, and I've been pregnant annually since 1999. I'm jsut telling you this so I know a little bit about what your situation feels like.
But...if you and your husband are so adverse to the idea of having another baby, to the point that you would take the MAP (a drug which I believe ends a life), then maybe it is irresponsible to get to that point in the first place.
I know I sound judgemental, and I'm sensitive to it too, because I've had people tell ME that I should get sterilized because we're poor, and because my kids are all so close together.
But if you know you feel that way about getting pregnant, then maybe more extreme measures are required to prevent the problem pregnancy in the first place.
*sigh* I think I should back out of this thread, I'm only going to offend people, I think.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
John: You know, I feel it necesary to point out that I _live_ in New Orleans, and when I'm not here, I'm a forty-five minute drive from Orlando. I find it extremely offensive that girls who are born into families that have money or who have parents who don't make them get jobs in high school/college are suddenly viewed as too frivolous or somehow stupid. Do I deserve it? I'm not even getting into that. My father's goal from a young age was essentially to have four children and to provide for them very well. Am I spoiled? Absolutely. Does that mean that I'm unintelligent or lack common sense? Absolutely not.
Guess what? All of those girls driving around in their brand-new SUVs are the ones I went to school with before I came here, and once I got here, I found it almost inconceivable that there are people whose parents refuse to contribute anything to their college educations because in my family (and extended family on the sides of both parents), it's considered the parents' _duty_ to provide for their children through college/grad school.
I just find it very irriating that girls are so often portrayed as gold-diggers simply because they're female and their parents buy them things. The same applies to women who date men with money, as well. God forbid they actually have an appreciation for the man's character or personality; they're obviously just using him for his money. Why? Because they're women, and that's just what women do.
posted
Pooka, have you tried Toilet Training In Less Than A Day with your 4 year old? My son was full on 4 years old when I used the techniques to get him potty trained. It was the only thing that worked. You have my sympathies...I remember that time as very very frustrating.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I felt that way too Jeni. There was a moment in time where abortion looked alot less scary than telling my future parents-in-law that I was pregnant. Yikes.
But we're glad we had him, and I don't think I could have terminated him.
When he got up from his nap, he sat in the floor and started crying and said in a barely understandable voice,
"I don't want the bubbles!"
Whatever that meant...it was pretty funny though.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I clarified that it was more than depression. I had to be hospitalized and tried to kill myself several times. This was before I had other children. I am pro-life but can think of scenarios where a lot of things could be necessary. But I also don't want to go Andrea Yates on my kids.
edit: I think we'll have to start a potty training thread.
posted
Sachiko, you have your opinion. Just consider that married couples who choose not to have children are making a personal decision that says nothing about their love for each other.
There are manypeople in loving relationships that do not want children.
Unfortunately, there is no 100% effective method for a sexually active couple to prevent egg/sperm fertilization. Even male sterilization has a 0.15% result of pregnancy per year.
(Corrected link) Edit again: by "sexually active couple" I am referring to a man and a woman engaging in activities including your average, run-of-the-mill sex. Lets just clarify that married gay couples will likely avoid all risks of pregnancy, since there are a couple thousand gay, married couples right now.
posted
I wonder what the stats are for couples where the man has had a visectomy and the woman has had a tubal ligation?
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, if you think that was snarky, you don't know me very well.
40% of all fertilized eggs DO NOT RESULT IN PREGNANCY. If all those fertilized eggs have immortal souls, well, that's one heck of a waste of immortal souls. MAP is one of the few abortion-like treatments I would have no personal problem with using myself, under certain circumstances.
I don't think I would use it unless I was raped or something, but I think my husband would rather avoid more children because of stuff I've already gone over.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: it's worth noting that even the idea of this "morning after" pill is a symptom of the bigger problem of addressing the world with consequences as an afterthought.
Its equally worthy to note that the MAP removes one of the consequences. Apply this same logic to another situation. Driving a car reduces the amount of gas in the tank. Should people avoid re-filling their gas tanks because such consequences become afterthoughts?
quote: This patchwork mentality is no good for society, so unless there is going to be just as much spent on teaching proper usage—something not done with current birth control measures—I don't see the sense in making more options available to an overly-ignorant general population.
This government enforced nanny-ism is really getting out of hand. If you think teaching people how to use the MAP will aleviate even a few of the problems that could arise, you are mistaken. Look at driving. The government requires that you pass their competancy test before you are allowed to drive, yet thousands still die every year as a result of care-less mistakes and unfamiliarity with the best driving techniques. The point is, the gov. cannot protect people from themselve, and should never try to do so.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet, do you know how they figure out that so many fertilized eggs fail to implant? I'm curious about it, becuase it sounds like such an impossible thing to know for sure.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, take a very deep breath. I didn't say that being born into money automagically makes you a spoiled rotten slut. In fact, of the spoiled rotten kids I know, very few of them got that way because of money. It doesn't take money to have a spoiled view on financial dependence. In fact, I didn't even say that kids who have trust funds or parents who can afford paying for their kids is even a bad thing. However, it's irresponsible to take the advantage of parents who are able to do that for granted, and even more to use it to get yourself out of trouble that could have been avoided by either being better prepared or taking proper measures ahead of time.
In case I didn't make it clear, I was talking about the tendency of society in general, not just college kids (and definitely not just girls), to handle problems in an "after-the-fact" manner. This is why I'll not just accept arguments for the pill on the matter of convenience. Of course, I won't accept arguments to the contrary because I can understand the practicality of the drug. The problems I see have to do with the way the actual drug works on the human body, in more ways than just preventing a zygote from attaching or not. You see, the practicality works both ways.
I'm not insulting teenagers, college girls or boys, or women in general. I'm saying that approaching the issue from an emotionally involved position on both sides makes the arguments for and against weaker and illogical. Just the same as "my faith says it's a sin," the "I'm someone who wants to use it" is just as biased.
And just so you know, I don't have anything against people who have money.
I do have a problem with people who think they can use money to solve their problems, and I do know many more people who think money will solve their problems. The thing is, people who are usually like that don't have gobs of it.
It's a mentality that is pervasive not just in younger people, but in the media in general, in politics, and even in parenting. And I'm supposed to just agree to allow even more of this irresponsible approach because it's assumed to be safe? It sure as hell isn't going to be because it's going to be prohibitively expensive, as I already explained (increase demand, and watch availability grow). It sure as hell isn't going to make people avoid instances where STDs can be transmitted (and whether it'll do the opposite is debatable, but not my point). It isn't even explained in any link how this is somehow a panacea that will affect all different body types the same, even though there is no other medicine that messes with a female's reproductive system's chemistry that affects all others the same (or, in some cases, safely).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its equally worthy to note that the MAP removes one of the consequences. Apply this same logic to another situation. Driving a car reduces the amount of gas in the tank. Should people avoid re-filling their gas tanks because such consequences become afterthoughts?
Robes, it doesn't remove the consequence, it removes having to consider it. If it works properly, it stops a fertilized zygote from attaching to a uterus. It doesn't stop the egg from being fertilized. That's not quite as tricky a moral argument as abortion, but it's just addressing the possibility of pregnancy after the fact.
And your analogy royally sucked. A better one is would you take a sledgehammer to your car before you drive it, since there is a possibility that you will wreck it?
quote:This government enforced nanny-ism is really getting out of hand.
Care to elaborate? Since I'm not arguing for it, I'm curious where this situation already exists, because I would also fight against it. Instead, what I see are special interest drug companies who are paying off legislators to legalize the highest bidder, often regardless of circumstance, until something bad happens or something better comes along.
quote:If you think teaching people how to use the MAP will aleviate even a few of the problems that could arise, you are mistaken.
Since I never said that, I'm not mistaken. Reading is fundemental—I said education, not about just morning-after pills. There are more myths about sex, pregnancy, conception, and contraception techniques than maybe you're willing to admit. Of course, I fully expect you're one of those types who thinks "normal people are stupid" as well.
quote:Look at driving. The government requires that you pass their competancy test before you are allowed to drive, yet thousands still die every year as a result of care-less mistakes and unfamiliarity with the best driving techniques.
But not you, right? You're a great driver, right?
And thanks for affirming my "normal people are stupid" message coming from you. Also, the driving analogy is once again horrible. If more people had better education, in a non-accusatory manner, about how operation of a car affects other operators, there would be more consideration during incidents that normally lead to accidents.
quote:The point is, the gov. cannot protect people from themselve, and should never try to do so.
You're preaching to the choir. Since I didn't say the government should, your argument doesn't make much sense when addressed to me.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL! John L. Rubber room! very funny *snort*
Jeniwren, that was my reaction when I saw it on NOVA, but evidently it just has to do with the time of the month and where the egg is. If it is in the uterus when the sperm hits it, it usually doesn't have time to implant because it's too close to the period already.
But, yeah. I'd also be curious as to how they figured that out. I've heard it quoted as as high as 50%, and I've heard doctors say that most pregnancies end in a period. Every time I hear it, I wonder how they figger that.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
: grabs a sickle and a torch : well I hate the rich! Especially that couple with the collie and the matching Harley Davidsons! Burn! Burn! Burn!
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Care to elaborate? Since I'm not arguing for it, I'm curious where this situation already exists, because I would also fight against it.
Well for one, the FDA. Then we can move onto Social Security, Welfare, Foodstamps, FAA, and the FCC. There are hundereds of examples of government nanny-ism.
quote: Instead, what I see are special interest drug companies who are paying off legislators to legalize the highest bidder, often regardless of circumstance, until something bad happens or something better comes along.
There is no question that those with political pull are using it to demand favors of the government. However, what do you mean by "legalize the highest bidder"? What does circumstance have to do with a business tansaction?
quote: There are more myths about sex, pregnancy, conception, and contraception techniques than maybe you're willing to admit.
And who's responsibility is it to dispell those myths? Is the government ment to bestow the label of true and untrue on every idea that goes around?
quote: Of course, I fully expect you're one of those types who thinks "normal people are stupid" as well.
Your expectation is noted.
quote: Also, the driving analogy is once again horrible. If more people had better education, in a non-accusatory manner, about how operation of a car affects other operators, there would be more consideration during incidents that normally lead to accidents.
Well then, if more education is the solution, why haven't we educated outselves into safety at the expense of taxpayers? And what the hell do you mean by "in a non-accusatory manner"?
quote: The point is, the gov. cannot protect people from themselve, and should never try to do so. ------------------------------------ You're preaching to the choir. Since I didn't say the government should, your argument doesn't make much sense when addressed to me.
Then you would agree that the above mentioned programs are good examples of government trying to protect people from themselves?
quote:Well for one, the FDA. Then we can move onto Social Security, Welfare, Foodstamps, FAA, and the FCC. There are hundereds of examples of government nanny-ism.
Uh huh, so this is about SS, welfare, and such? I think the 1880's to the 1940's shows how well a laizes faire policy works out.
quote:There is no question that those with political pull are using it to demand favors of the government. However, what do you mean by "legalize the highest bidder"? What does circumstance have to do with a business tansaction?
Perhaps you should ask the drug companies who exist almost solely as beneficiaries of government grants, and then put money right back into "contributions" when they get the legislators who push their product past the FDA without lengthy testing. Unless you're advocating total hands-off with regard to making drugs available to the public—which would be a totally different (and more insane) argument—you're playing intentionally ignorant to how these drug companies are paying the government to let their products get to the shelves to begin with. I hole the same disdain for the insurance companies, who pay government to let them make our decisions for us. I'm all for putting the power to decide back to the people, but advocacy of all drugs, whether medical or not, isn't the way to handle the problem.
quote:And who's responsibility is it to dispell those myths? Is the government ment to bestow the label of true and untrue on every idea that goes around?
Can you make one argument against me without twisting what I said to something I didn't say? I never said the government should do the teaching, since they have equally vested interests.
quote:Well then, if more education is the solution, why haven't we educated outselves into safety at the expense of taxpayers? And what the hell do you mean by "in a non-accusatory manner"?
You've never studied a driving course? "Don't do this" is not informative, it's accusatory. And we haven't "educated ourselves into safety" because I didn't say that. However, when people are kept intentionally ignorant of options—as is the current state—adding more variables without information is just stupid.
quote:Then you would agree that the above mentioned programs are good examples of government trying to protect people from themselves?
As opposed to the "let god sort `em out" method?
And no, I don't agree. I agree that your Libertarian ideals have taken every possible position to its utmost extreme, and if the world really were black and white, you would have a point. Since the world doesn't really work that way, all you're doing is digging a logical hole for yourself by placing everything I say as one side or the other. I'm ambivalent on the issue of whether it should be OTC or not. However, I have pointed out how emotionally charging your case makes it less effective. Playing the liberty card isn't going to sway my opinion, since I have, to date, not made one. Trying to appeal to me emotionally isn't going to fly, either, so this "government nanny" crap is pretty useless.
If anyone can find me info on how this drug actually affects different chemical makeups, including different emotional chemistries, I'll be happy to look at them. All the data shown so far has concentrated on "worked / not worked" and "side effects like nausea." I want more meat than that. I also want more meat than moral arguments one way or the other. Make it practical, or at least be honest about your bias.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Unless you're advocating total hands-off with regard to making drugs available to the public
Believe it or not, John, I believe this is Robes POV. If no one trusts the drug companies, they might try harder not to kill so many of us. I don't always agree with Robes, but when it comes to drug companies I happen to.
Edit to add: Where's the man who said this?
quote: I'm saying that approaching the issue from an emotionally involved position on both sides makes the arguments for and against weaker and illogical.
posted
I've known people who died because of the drugs they were taking. Not their own illness, but brought on by the drugs that had not been adequetly tested.
In an unregulated market, some people lose their jobs in the search for equilibrium. In an unregulated drug trade, people die.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless you're advocating total hands-off with regard to making drugs available to the public --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not, John, I believe this is Robes POV.
Which is, as I said, unrealistic.
quote:I've known people who died because of the drugs they were taking. Not their own illness, but brought on by the drugs that had not been adequetly tested.
This includes prescription drugs, not just OTC. And to get a little personal with it, my aunt just died because of "oversights" like that, even though she was in otherwise adequate health.
I'm not making an issue about whether the government should be bigger or smaller, because that's not going to be some automagic fix to all of life's problems. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either running for office, indoctrinated by those running for office, or outright lying (which could also include running for office).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This includes prescription drugs, not just OTC. And to get a little personal with it, my aunt just died because of "oversights" like that, even though she was in otherwise adequate health.
Yes, it definitely includes prescription drugs. That's one of the things that contributed to my mother dying.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Properly prescribed Rx drugs are like the third or fourth biggest cause of death in the US. Granted some of these people would die from something else if not for the drug, but it's gotten to a point where there isn't a lot of room for that argument. Though the only relatives I've lost to drugs were due to prescription errors.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've known people who died because of the drugs they were taking. Not their own illness, but brought on by the drugs that had not been adequetly tested. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This includes prescription drugs, not just OTC. And to get a little personal with it, my aunt just died because of "oversights" like that, even though she was in otherwise adequate health.
I blame non-regulated homeopathic snake-oils for a significant chunk of my mother's self-destruction. The idea of removing all regulation from drug manufacturers seems like a pretty awful idea to me. In the interim before the free market fixed all of the world's ills, a lot more people would die.
Robespierre, if you're a real person and not just somebody playing Locke or Demosthenes with us, can you tell us what actual events in your life have led you to your particular brand of libertarianism? Because I always see you make pronouncements on what is just or who creates wealth, but I can't think of a time I have ever seen you post something that is not rhetorical. I'm sorry if I am being insulting . . . I'm just having a hard time getting a handle on you as a real person--you are such a single issue poster here. When you suggest something like doing away with building inspectors because builders whose buildings collapse will simply not get as many jobs, I wonder how you can be okay with all the people who will die in the meantime. (To say nothing of the fact that, rather than go belly up, incompetent builders will simply relocate and undercut their more established competition.) Same goes for this issue. I can't think of another poster with your level of monomania, and honestly, I just wish I could understand you better.
quote:I blame non-regulated homeopathic snake-oils for a significant chunk of my mother's self-destruction. The idea of removing all regulation from drug manufacturers seems like a pretty awful idea to me. In the interim before the free market fixed all of the world's ills, a lot more people would die.
It's something a bit off-topic, but there's no such thing as a true "free trade." Not even in a barter system. Eventually, monopolies or trusts form in at least one sector and start choking the others. The biggest problem with regulations today is that they sometimes behave like those monopolies or trusts. Another problem is that some people who are in control of these regulations are getting incredible "contributions" (read: payoffs) by the very things they are in power to regulate. All in all, it winds up working out like a mafia protection ring, where the groups who can afford to pay get taken care of. And it's not just the chemical companies, it's also the packaging companies (like Johnson & Johnson).
The thing is, some vast revolution or upheaval isn't going to set things right and save lives. Cleaning house and reforming procedure will. The down side is that it will cost more money—forget that most of the cost will come from the lack of payoffs.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
MAP is one of the few abortion-like treatments I would have no personal problem with using myself, under certain circumstances.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
