Roe v Wade and the FDA

RStringfield said:
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..... 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.

snip.
Click to expand...

This is why is pays to do actual research on the internet, before you post something from LewRockwell.com

The problem you cite doesn't exist. It exists only in the fevered imaginations of the Lew Rockwell and Ayn Rand crowds.

FDA already allows terminally ill patient to be treated with experimental drugs that have shown promise, through the IND Treatment program:


Treatment IND - FDA Website


"Treatment Investigational New Drugs (Federal Register, May 22, 1987) are used to make promising new drugs available to desperately ill patients as early in the drug development process as possible. FDA will permit an investigational drug to be used under a treatment IND if there is preliminary evidence of drug efficacy and the drug is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease, or if there is no comparable alternative drug or therapy available to treat that stage of the disease in the intended patient population. In addition, these patients are not eligible to be in the definitive clinical trials, which must be well underway, if not almost finished."

http://www.fda.gov/cder/handbook/treatind.htm
Click to expand...
 
hi rs, now i know where you went

the original opposition to doctors performing abortions goes back to the hippocratic oath c. 400 bce when performing an abortion was more likely to kill a woman than not performing one - usually ascribed to a resultant infection

currently, some doctors and pharmacists use their own person moral (religious) position to prevent abortion or contraception

a little noticed part of the current budget has doubled the cost of birth control pills on college campuses - care to wager that there will be an increase in unwanted pregnancies - or maybe a rise in the use of condoms...
 
rs

i posted a reply for this one but i cannot find it

so here i go again

i would counsel against abortion, but am pro-choice

moreover, being male, i think the decision should be between a woman, her doctor and whichever counselor(s) she choses (if any)

abortion strikes me as a medical decision and should remain in the perview of the medical profession with whatever morality the medical provider has be suppressed
 
DonQuixote said:
rs

i posted a reply for this one but i cannot find it

so here i go again

i would counsel against abortion, but am pro-choice

moreover, being male, i think the decision should be between a woman, her doctor and whichever counselor(s) she choses (if any)

abortion strikes me as a medical decision and should remain in the perview of the medical profession with whatever morality the medical provider has be suppressed
Click to expand...
I think you would find a lot of us in that position.--- not liking abortion, but realizing that in some cases it is the more reasonable answer.
 
Cypress said:
This is why is pays to do actual research on the internet, before you post something from LewRockwell.com

The problem you cite doesn't exist. It exists only in the fevered imaginations of the Lew Rockwell and Ayn Rand crowds.

FDA already allows terminally ill patient to be treated with experimental drugs that have shown promise, through the IND Treatment program:
Click to expand...

Sorry, the fact that they allow some experimental drugs to be used after they have stamp them as showing "promise" does not change anything. It only slightly alleviates the problem.
 
Watermark said:
RS, you don't understand that quote I posted?

Clearly, you don't know your Rand nearly as well as I do.
Click to expand...

I ignored it because, I don't see how it applies to this thread. Yes, Smith was errant on his theory of value. Ricardo expanded on it. Marx took the error and based his thought upon it, discarding Smith's and Ricardo's correct positions. The Austrians corrected it.
 
Last edited:
DonQuixote said:
rs

i posted a reply for this one but i cannot find it

so here i go again

i would counsel against abortion, but am pro-choice

moreover, being male, i think the decision should be between a woman, her doctor and whichever counselor(s) she choses (if any)

abortion strikes me as a medical decision and should remain in the perview of the medical profession with whatever morality the medical provider has be suppressed
Click to expand...

dq, my question is why is this right privacy in medical decisions isolated only to abortion?
 
Water, quick search turned up Laski. After reading his bio, he obviously seemed to be very Toohey like. And another search landed confirmation of him as a basis.

I may have known that at some point. I've probably forgotten more about Rand than you yet know :) and I have not read her in quite awhile. Maybe, I will at some point, go back over her works.
 
You know Rand tried to develop her own theory ov value. The objective theory of value. It's really just the Austrian's subjective theory of value dressed up a bit. She did not like that word. Where it differs, it is really rather silly and, in my opinion, contradicts some of her more foundational points.
 
RStringfield said:
dq, my question is why is this right privacy in medical decisions isolated only to abortion?
Click to expand...

rs

it should not be

hence my stance on legalizing vice for adults - including restrictd recreational drugs

if you are an adult and act like a responsible adult, then why should you not be allowed to do privately much as you please - i will admit that preying on non-adults needs to be limited

so perhaps i am in favor of adult / adult behavior but not child/adult behavior

the question being, when does someone become an adult - the research says about 25 to 26 years of age - however, if a person can show adult behavior at an earlier age, then let them be treated as an adult

personal freedom requires personal responsibility

PS WHERE IS THE SPELL CHECK FEATURE???
 
DonQuixote said:
rs

it should not be

hence my stance on legalizing vice for adults - including restrictd recreational drugs

if you are an adult and act like a responsible adult, then why should you not be allowed to do privately much as you please - i will admit that preying on non-adults needs to be limited

so perhaps i am in favor of adult / adult behavior but not child/adult behavior

the question being, when does someone become an adult - the research says about 25 to 26 years of age - however, if a person can show adult behavior at an earlier age, then let them be treated as an adult

personal freedom requires personal responsibility

PS WHERE IS THE SPELL CHECK FEATURE???
Click to expand...
It is included in Mozilla for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top