Roe v Wade and the FDA

T

Timshel

New member
How is it, that abortion is determined to be a privacy right between doctor and patient, but the FDA may invade the privacy of these medical decisions in so many other areas?

Note: I am pro-choice. This aint an argument against abortion.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/m.lora38.html

Imagine that you have are critically ill, terminally perhaps, and a new experimental treatment has just been discovered. The doctors say that it's still very new, barely tested, but it shows early signs of promise. You have tried every mainstream treatment available. None of them have worked. In a fit of complete desperation, you decide that, since you're going to die anyway, you might as well go out swinging. You ask for the new treatment. Your doctor is aghast! Not only will he not be "party to someone preying on you," he knows the new treatment is expensive and your insurance won't cover it anyway. Even if you can pay, the answer is a resounding, "No." You're stuck. But hey, at least they're looking out for you.

By the way, there are some who would say that this is exactly what happened to Coretta Scott King. Regardless of the somewhat dicey background of the "alternative medicine practitioner" she went to see, it seems rather clear that the decision should have been hers, not some government agency, no matter how well-intentioned. They and people like them protect you from yourself, but unfortunately, no one is available to protect you from them.

These appalling incidents are not, as many would think, exceptions. They are indeed how the FDA works. It holds a state monopoly on the ultimate decision-making ability when it comes to drug and treatment approval. In other words, it's health socialism. Instead of the patient making a decision (with the help of doctors and other specialists), the one who gets the final word is a group of government "experts" who, through their decrees, have your best intentions in their selfless hearts. Just a glance at some of the recent behavior from the FDA reaffirms the point. When the FDA removes a senior scientist for voicing concerns about the safety of a product, one has to wonder what their real purpose might be.
 
Last edited:
Yes and even with the FDA how many drug recalls have we had since Regan fast tracked the approval process vs before the approval process ?
 
This is sad. This monopoly on "scientific legitimacy" is how the government will gain complete control over our bodies.
 
Umm they do not have control already. They control what we consume, what we are allowed to do and even when we are allowed to die.
 
I read about this situation recently. It's appalling. As you said, under circumstances where all mainstream approaches have been tried and have failed, whose business is it but the patient's if a novel, experimental treatment might be a last resort? NIH does that all the time!

If I were dying and had tried everything, unsuccessfully, to turn the corner on what was killing me, I'd want the right to volunteer for any experimental procedure that may have a chance, however remote, to help me. Failing that, if I were going to die anyway, I'd be glad that whatever information the medical scientists could gain from my participation might help to turn the investigation in the right direction. Often we learn as much from our failures as from our predictions, perhaps more frequently. My point is that it has to be the patient's decision -- informed to be sure -- whether or not to make this last-ditch effort.

I also support the patient's right to die with dignity if that choice is made clearly and rationally.
 
usc, got an answer for my q. How is abortion a privacy right while other medical decisions don't enjoy that same protection?
 
Adam Smith had declared the source of value to lie in labor; and, at the moment of its deepest agony, there were men willing to point the moral of his tale. That it represented an incautious analysis was, for them, unimportant beside the fact that it opened once more a path whereby economics could be reclaimed for moral science. For if labor was the source of value, as Bray and Thompson pointed out, it seemed as though degradation was the sole payment for its services. They did not ask whether the organization they envisaged was economically profitable, but whether it was ethically right. No one can read the history of these years and fail to understand their uncompromising denial of its rightness. Their negation fell upon unheeding ears; but twenty years later, the tradition for which they stood came into Marx's hands and was fashioned by him into an interpretation of history. With all its faults of statement and of emphasis, the doctrine of the English socialists has been, in later hands, the most fruitful hypothesis of modern politics. It was a deliberate effort, upon the basis of Adam Smith's ideas, to create a commonwealth in the interests of the masses. Wealth, in its view, was less the mere production of goods than the accumulated happiness of humble men. The impulses it praised and sought through state-action to express were, indeed, different from those upon which Smith laid emphasis; and he would doubtless have stood aghast at the way in which his thought was turned to ends of which he did not dream. Yet he can hardly have desired a greater glory. He thus made possible not only knowledge of a State untrammelled in its economic life by moral considerations; but also the road to those categories wherein the old conception of co-operative effort might find a new expression. Those who trod in his footsteps may have repudiated the ideal for which he stood, but they made possible a larger hope in which he would have been proud and glad to share.
 
RStringfield said:
usc, got an answer for my q. How is abortion a privacy right while other medical decisions don't enjoy that same protection?
Click to expand...
Umm cause it involves women ?

I am not really pro abortion, but I do not think it is my right to make others be leglislated to my beliefs. I would think Libertarians would understand that.
I do not consider a embryo as a seperate life until it can live on it's own.
And no use posting stuff to the contrary about when life begins because for me it will be a waste of your time and energy.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm cause it involves women ?

I am not really pro abortion, but I do not think it is my right to make others be leglislated to my beliefs. I would think Libertarians would understand that.
I do not consider a embryo as a seperate life until it can live on it's own.
And no use posting stuff to the contrary about when life begins because for me it will be a waste of your time and energy.
Click to expand...

Um usc, he said in his initial post in this thread that he's pro choice. :)
 
uscitizen said:
Umm cause it involves women ?

I am not really pro abortion, but I do not think it is my right to make others be leglislated to my beliefs. I would think Libertarians would understand that.
I do not consider a embryo as a seperate life until it can live on it's own.
And no use posting stuff to the contrary about when life begins because for me it will be a waste of your time and energy.
Click to expand...

So your answer is because it involves women??? Or is this just your usual divert, duck and run maneuver?

Ummmm, I think Coretta Scott King's search for treatment involved a woman.
 
It's not that I did not understand it, but rather that I was not sure.

That was the purpose of the question marks and the query of whether it was just a diversion and evade. Apparently, you can't offer a reasonable answer (no fault, since I don't think there is one) so you make a joke, set up a strawman then head for the hills. Well you have come back to follow up with ad hom. But still no substantive response.
 
RStringfield said:
It's not that I did not understand it, but rather that I was not sure.

That was the purpose of the question marks and the query of whether it was just a diversion and evade. Apparently, you can't offer a reasonable answer (no fault, since I don't think there is one) so you make a joke, set up a strawman then head for the hills. Well you have come back to follow up with ad hom. But still no substantive response.
Click to expand...

LOL, Kinda like looking in the mirror string ?
 
Silly Silly Silly.............

uscitizen said:
Umm cause it involves women ?

I am not really pro abortion, but I do not think it is my right to make others be leglislated to my beliefs. I would think Libertarians would understand that.
I do not consider a embryo as a seperate life until it can live on it's own.
And no use posting stuff to the contrary about when life begins because for me it will be a waste of your time and energy.
Click to expand...


First and foremost when does the embryo turned child in development(in the womb)...turned child outside the womb actually reach a point that they can live on their own??? Does this mean parents could terminate a childs life at anytime prior to this since they cannot survive without intervention and assistance?Ya see this is the flawed concept of abortion!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top