Ending Medical Innovation
Health
| November 7, 2009
| Tim
Why does Congress now seem to want to discourage the creation of innovative new drugs and life-saving medical devices? That isn't the kind of "reform" most people would want to see.
This article in Commentary, I think, answers my question:
The conduct of the businesses that had been responsible for almost every medical innovation from which Americans and the world had benefited for decades became intensely controversial in the 1990s. An odd inversion came into play. Since the work they did was life-saving or life-enhancing, it was not deemed by a certain liberal mindset to be of special value, worth the expense. Rather, medical treatment came to be considered a human right to which universal access was required without regard to cost. Because people needed these goods so much, it was unscrupulous or greedy to involve the profit principle in them. What mattered most was equity. Consumers of health care should not have to be subject to market forces.
It is better for a medical device not to be available at all than to for someone to make "too much" profit on it. It is better for you to die or suffer in pain than for a drug to be available at too high a cost, or more available for some people than others. It is better for the vast majority to live in nearly grinding poverty than to have a higher overall standard of living, while allowing a few wealthy to exist.
Wow I came to this article expecting to disagree, however I agree 100%. I am a left winger, I have no doubt (nor any issues with the fact) that you would label me a socialist, in fact I do embrace the label willingly. However I see no issue with someone making a profit from medical advancement.
I do have to ask though, if you are all for medical advancement are you ok with the fact that the DEA and FDA block research into the benefits of medicinal marijuana?
I do have to ask though, if you are all for medical advancement are you ok with the fact that the DEA and FDA block research into the benefits of medicinal marijuana?
Do you have any documentation? this article, from the ACLU, says only that there is a "government monopoly on the supply of research-grade marijuana available for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved studies."
Which, if true, makes some sense, actually: do you want the government doing medical research using substances of illegal origin and questionable quality — rather than plants whose production the government oversaw?
To answer your main question: No, I'm not at all opposed to research on positive medical benefits of marijuana — or any substance.
My only concern is with the ultimate effects of experiments like those in California, where "medical use" is apparently being used as a dishonest smokescreen for legalization, and where the drug is being taken for all sorts of "conditions" — some of which may be fictional, and some which, even if real, have no strong evidence for comparative benefits from marijuana use.
(Even if one thinks legalization is a good thing, I would think using such dishonest tactics — bait and switch — would seem more than a bit undemocratic.)
As I explain here:
In any of these debates, the good done by policy X has to be weighed against the harm done by the same. It's not enough to just look at one side of the equation. Could marijuana help with autism? Some think so. But, even if so — what about the long-term impacts of a significantly expanded stoner culture?
So I would favor research in both positive and negative results of marijuana use as part of trying to work out that equation.
I am a left winger, I have no doubt (nor any issues with the fact) that you would label me a socialist, in fact I do embrace the label willingly.
Then I'm rather proud of you! I'm quite tired of the weird attitude many leftists I know seem to have, where they constantly advocate for increased government control in nearly everything, but then seem unwilling to admit to others, or perhaps even themselves, that they hold left-of-center positions. It's as if they both want to push for something, but are ashamed of admitting what it is.
That situation seems extremely unhealthy, no matter what view one holds. It implies that person either doesn't know him- or herself, is isn't willing to be honest.
So, I can see the obvious attraction of the more "socialist" position, at least for some (some people think the government can give them "free stuff"; others have a vindictive attitude against anyone they think is wealthier), but what do you say to those who point out that the more socialist a nation is, the more stagnant its economy? And what about the alleged increased death toll, as socialism increases?
For example, consider the medical situation in Canada, where they're outlawed private practice. Huge waiting lines result, and many people can't even get basic medical care unless they travel to the United States, next door.
What kind of response do you give to such points? And why do you personally find socialism so attractive?
Thanks much in advance!
Well interesting rebuttal, I think I will enjoy spending some time on this blog debating. It is always good to meet a good debater that doesn't rely on cheap tricks to turn away from the issue at hand. Now to your points:
The National Institute on Drug Abuse only approves funding for studies which show the negative effect of marijuana on patients and refuses to fund studies which might show benefits. While this does not directly skew the data on marijuana it does indirectly.
As for the government only sourced marijuana, no it does not make sense, the government allows private laboratories to produce cocaine and heroine for studies, but not marijuana. Marijuana is an easy drug to get your hands on, and to control the quality of. Any lab would be easily equipped to grow their own marijuana source without having to deal with the government sources.
I do agree that the bait and switch tactic of approving medicinal marijuana in order to further the goals of legalization is not a good thing. I for one don't agree with just legalization of medicinal marijuana, I do agree that it is a step in the right direction, and that medicinal marijuana has many many health benefits.
"In any of these debates, the good done by policy X has to be weighed against the harm done by the same. It's not enough to just look at one side of the equation. Could marijuana help with autism? Some think so. But, even if so — what about the long-term impacts of a significantly expanded stoner culture?"
A "significantly expanded stoner culture"? That's your fear? Oh my someone's watched a little too much Reefer Madness. Approving marijuana for use for autism have nothing to do with "the long-term impacts of a significantly expanded stoner culture".
The fact is there is tons of research into marijuana and so far there has not been a single study which showed causality to anything more than an increased rate of certain lung diseases (and cancer was not one of them) when smoked. The problem is there has been reams and reams of studies done on the negative aspects and not enough on the positive.
I agree that many on both sides of the political spectrum try hard to hide their position on said spectrum in order to disguise their motivation. I think this is ridiculous. I also think its incredibly naive to believe that because someone is right or left wing that you necessarily know their stance on any one issue. Thus the other reason people tend to avoid being labeled either left or right wing.
As for your statements on socialism, well your right winged nature is definitely showing true. Not all socialists believe in free hand outs or that all rich are evil.
As for the economy, well one has just to look at how much better Canada fared during the current economic crisis to see that a socialist state does not necessarily equate to a stagnate economy. Sure the Soviet Union was terribly stagnate, but the Soviet Union has many other issues which contributed to that. And Cuba, well its had the embargo to deal with, and even with that they still do ok.
As to the claim about death rates, well that's just silly. Simple facts don't support it. Here are some death rates as per the CIA World Factbook estimates for 2009. This is deaths per 1000
United States of America - 8.38
Cuba - 7.24
Canada - 7.74
So the USA, which I think you will agree is very non socialist has a higher death rate than either Cuba or Canada, and Cuba which is considerably more socialist than even Canada has a lower death rate than both Canada and the United States. So the claim about socialist countries having a higher death rate is just plain wrong.
As for the Canadian health care system, yes it is a mess, but your facts are wrong. Even someone without a doctor can see a physician, it may take longer yes, but they can get medical care without paying. Private practices are not outlawed at all. There are many private clinics throughout Canada. Yes there are wait lists, however that's more due to the fact that people who are in the most need of medical assistance get the help before those that would simply be more comfortable with medical assistance, its called triage.
How do your respond to claims that medical spending per capita is considerably higher in states that do not have state funded medical care. For instance in 2004 it is estimated that Americans spent $2728 while Canadians spent only $2209 four our health care. Or if you'd like US has a higher percentage of spending of their GDP on health care then Canada, UK, and France all of whom have state medical programs.
So, so far I have demonstrated that in non socialist states the death rate is higher and the citizens spend more of their money on health care. The best you can do is say that socialists spend a little more time in line.
As for the government only sourced marijuana, no it does not make sense, the government allows private laboratories to produce cocaine and heroine for studies, but not marijuana.
Good point!
A "significantly expanded stoner culture"? That's your fear? Oh my someone's watched a little too much Reefer Madness...
Um, "stoner culture" doesn't mean just pot, as you seem to be assuming. (Or do you think allegations of dangers regarding meth, PHP, and coke are also largely fictional?) And, no I've never seen "Reefer Madness" -- my concerns even about long-term and/or heavy pot use are based on friends I've watched over the years, firsthand. I'm aware everyone insists long-term and/or heavy use doesn't have negative effects. I just tend to trust my own direct observations more.
The fact is there is tons of research into marijuana and so far there has not been a single study which showed causality to anything more than an increased rate of certain lung diseases (and cancer was not one of them) when smoked. The problem is there has been reams and reams of studies done on the negative aspects and not enough on the positive...
You demand an unusual standard of proof. There are very few medical studies which directly "show causality" for anything. Showing correlation, provided you've controlled for other factors reasonably, is the same way almost all medical and drug safety tests are conducted.
Further, almost every prominent source I can find seems to contradict your statements, particularly regarding cancer rates. (That's one thing I've never understood from my pro-drug friends: the same people who want to ban cigarettes also often want pot — which seems similarly carcinogenic, if not worse — legalized!)
As for your statements on socialism, well your right winged nature is definitely showing true. Not all socialists believe in free hand outs or that all rich are evil.
Um, perhaps I should mention that your reading skills are showing? I've never said anything of the sort!
I can see the obvious attraction of the more "socialist" position, at least for some...
"Some" (my word) != "all" (your summary of what I wrote). Do you dispute that "some" hope to receive free things from the government? Seems a reasonable statement to me: why else would politicians promise voters free things, if they didn't think that would be an appealing idea to many?
So the USA, which I think you will agree is very non socialist has a higher death rate than either Cuba or Canada...
Ah, longevity statistics! (Well, technically, death rates, which is the same statistic in a different form.)
Before I answer (assuming you'll check this again, later), I want to ask you a (rhetorical) question: Does the question really matter to you? What I mean is, if the US actually had, hypothetically, longer life expectancies, and thus lower death rates, would you then change your mind and prefer less socialism?
Or would you find another argument, indicating that there's really another, more important underlying reason than the one you just gave? (And if so, then I'd ask you again, politely: What is that reason, if you'd care to share it?)
My point isn't merely hypothetical: Read this.
And even if your argument above held up (which I think it doesn't) I don't view life expectancy rates as the end-all be-all metric. I like to ski, which probably shortens my life expectancy, on average. But I wouldn't trade it for a few years. If moving to Cuba gave me another 1 year (or 5, or 6 months) I still wouldn't want to live there. Can you honestly say you would?
So, so far I have demonstrated that in non socialist states the death rate is higher and the citizens spend more of their money on health care. The best you can do is say that socialists spend a little more time in line.
I believe I've effectively refuted the first point, and would also note that the "little more time in line" can actually mean a dangerously long period (over twice the recommend maximum interval, on average — not even "worse case"!), with more pain and suffering and increased morality rates.
A 2004 survey of Canadian health care professionals, conducted by Ipsos-Reid on behalf of the Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Nurses Association, revealed significant concerns.
"The primary consequence of delayed access [to health care] is the worsening conditions of their patients," the survey found. It also reported 12 percent of physicians and 4 percent of nurses believe they have had patients die specifically because of long waits for needed care.
"Long waits can have several consequences," explains Dr. Robert Hamilton, a retired surgeon in Illinois. "Chronic conditions can become acute, with increased morbidity and mortality, and curable malignancies may become incurable." Hamilton also notes many orthopedic procedures, such as hip replacement and knee replacement, are done to relieve pain, which can be severe while a patient is forced to wait. [source]
Thanks for dropping by!
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« The Exorcism of Emily Rose |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Michael Tomasky's Brilliance »
|
Wow I came to this article expecting to disagree, however I agree 100%. I am a left winger, I have no doubt (nor any issues with the fact) that you would label me a socialist, in fact I do embrace the label willingly. However I see no issue with someone making a profit from medical advancement.
I do have to ask though, if you are all for medical advancement are you ok with the fact that the DEA and FDA block research into the benefits of medicinal marijuana?
Posted by: 420-Guy on December 1, 2009 11:35 AM