Right To Try Law

[theDoctorisIn]

A no brainer for everyone except the pols.

But watch...some dude will be cured then his lawyer will due for wrongful life.

It's not a "no-brainer". I agree with this law, but it's not a "no brainer" at all.

Remember, thalidomide was once thought to be a pregnancy "wonder drug".

Remember, when the Doctor has no facts he makes shit up.

Thalidomide was never considered a wonder drug for pregnancy, it was a sedative that was used to treat morning sickness back when it was considered a mental disorder.

Are you under the impression that that somehow changes or invalidates my point?

Or are you just being an arrogant know-it-all trying to show off how intelligent you are - like you've accused me of doing?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not a "no-brainer". I agree with this law, but it's not a "no brainer" at all.

Remember, thalidomide was once thought to be a pregnancy "wonder drug".

Remember, when the Doctor has no facts he makes shit up.

Thalidomide was never considered a wonder drug for pregnancy, it was a sedative that was used to treat morning sickness back when it was considered a mental disorder.

Are you under the impression that that somehow changes or invalidates my point?

We aren't talking about sellling thse drugs OTC, which actually happened with thalidomide before the birth defects were tied t it, we are talking about people choosing to take a deliberate risk to save their lives, so, yes, it does invalidate your point, whatever you think your point was.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Remember, when the Doctor has no facts he makes shit up.

Thalidomide was never considered a wonder drug for pregnancy, it was a sedative that was used to treat morning sickness back when it was considered a mental disorder.

Are you under the impression that that somehow changes or invalidates my point?

We aren't talking about sellling thse drugs OTC, which actually happened with thalidomide before the birth defects were tied t it, we are talking about people choosing to take a deliberate risk to save their lives, so, yes, it does invalidate your point, whatever you think your point was.

Well, since you think you've "invalidated" my point, what do you think it is?

What have you "invalidated", exactly?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Remember, when the Doctor has no facts he makes shit up.

Thalidomide was never considered a wonder drug for pregnancy, it was a sedative that was used to treat morning sickness back when it was considered a mental disorder.

Are you under the impression that that somehow changes or invalidates my point?

We aren't talking about sellling thse drugs OTC, which actually happened with thalidomide before the birth defects were tied t it, we are talking about people choosing to take a deliberate risk to save their lives, so, yes, it does invalidate your point, whatever you think your point was.

You should have continued reading the wikipedia page, rather than stopping in the first paragraph.

Thalidomide was never sold OTC in the US - in fact, it was never approved at all by the FDA for morning sickness. Hence the reason why the US had a fraction of the birth defect cases that other countries had.

It's likely thousands of lives in the US were saved by the fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you under the impression that that somehow changes or invalidates my point?

We aren't talking about sellling thse drugs OTC, which actually happened with thalidomide before the birth defects were tied t it, we are talking about people choosing to take a deliberate risk to save their lives, so, yes, it does invalidate your point, whatever you think your point was.

You should have continued reading the wikipedia page, rather than stopping in the first paragraph.

Thalidomide was never sold OTC in the US - in fact, it was never approved at all by the FDA for morning sickness. Hence the reason why the US had a fraction of the birth defect cases that other countries had.

It's likely thousands of lives in the US were saved by the fact.

I don't recall saying it was sold OTC in the US, can you point out where I made that claim?

Like I said, we aren't talking about getting approval for drugs, we are talking about allowing people who are fucking dying the option to use experimental drugs. Unless you can point to a large number of people who are pregnant under those circumstances you really do not have a point. Feel free to keep harping on it though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.
Colorado's 'Right To Try' Law Will Give Some Patients Access To Experimental Drugs

KRISTEN WYATT 05/18/2014

<snip>


The "Right To Try" law allows terminally ill patients to obtain experimental drugs without getting federal approval. It's a proposal being advanced in several states by patient advocates who are frustrated by the yearslong federal approval process for experimental drugs in the pipeline.

<snip>

Gov. John Hickenlooper on Saturday signed Colorado's "Right To Try" bill, which was passed unanimously in the state Legislature.

<snip>
.

Is anyone else confused as to how, in a supposedly free country without "draconian waiting lists for medical care like they have in England," this would even be an issue and Right to Try laws would even need to be passed?

There's an enormous difference between being forced to wait to even see a doctor for treatment because healthcare is rationed, and consumer protection laws requiring that a medication be thoroughly vetted for public safety before being released.

That being said, I don't have a problem with allowing terminally ill patients the option of trying something promising that hasn't been released to the public yet, provided that valid concerns regarding safe, responsible prescription have been accounted for, and provided that no one is planning to pass laws forcing someone to pay for those experimental drugs against their will.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If there is a right to die, there should be a right to try. Someone who is terminally ill has a right to choose to end their lives. It doesn't make sense to deny them a right to experimental treatments on the basis that such treatment might kill them.

In a rather heartlessly practical sense, they could also do a lot to expedite release of those medications to other patients by demonstrating their effectiveness and perhaps streamlining the approval process by acting as human guinea pigs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A no brainer for everyone except the pols.

But watch...some dude will be cured then his lawyer will due for wrongful life.

It's not a "no-brainer". I agree with this law, but it's not a "no brainer" at all.

Remember, thalidomide was once thought to be a pregnancy "wonder drug".

True, but in this case, we're not talking about anti-anxiety and -nausea drugs for pregnant women. We're talking about people who are going to die, anyway. What's the worst that can happen? They die MORE?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A no brainer for everyone except the pols.

But watch...some dude will be cured then his lawyer will due for wrongful life.

It's not a "no-brainer". I agree with this law, but it's not a "no brainer" at all.

Remember, thalidomide was once thought to be a pregnancy "wonder drug".

True, but in this case, we're not talking about anti-anxiety and -nausea drugs for pregnant women. We're talking about people who are going to die, anyway. What's the worst that can happen? They die MORE?

As I said, I support this law. I support making experimental drugs available to terminal patients.

The issue I have is with the idea that the FDA doesn't serve a purpose, or shouldn't exist, or is somehow being "evil" by requiring drugs to be throughly tested before being put on the shelves.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not a "no-brainer". I agree with this law, but it's not a "no brainer" at all.

Remember, thalidomide was once thought to be a pregnancy "wonder drug".

True, but in this case, we're not talking about anti-anxiety and -nausea drugs for pregnant women. We're talking about people who are going to die, anyway. What's the worst that can happen? They die MORE?

As I said, I support this law. I support making experimental drugs available to terminal patients.

The issue I have is with the idea that the FDA doesn't serve a purpose, or shouldn't exist, or is somehow being "evil" by requiring drugs to be throughly tested before being put on the shelves.

No, they're being evil by using protocols that block useful drugs from coming on the market, even where adequate testing has been done in other countries.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If there is a right to die, there should be a right to try. Someone who is terminally ill has a right to choose to end their lives. It doesn't make sense to deny them a right to experimental treatments on the basis that such treatment might kill them.

In a rather heartlessly practical sense, they could also do a lot to expedite release of those medications to other patients by demonstrating their effectiveness and perhaps streamlining the approval process by acting as human guinea pigs.

Not heartless at all (imho). I think a lot of folks facing the end of their life would appreciate knowing that what they are going through may help others overcome it.

100% in favor of this law.

I hope it spreads like wildfire.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not a "no-brainer". I agree with this law, but it's not a "no brainer" at all.

Remember, thalidomide was once thought to be a pregnancy "wonder drug".

True, but in this case, we're not talking about anti-anxiety and -nausea drugs for pregnant women. We're talking about people who are going to die, anyway. What's the worst that can happen? They die MORE?

As I said, I support this law. I support making experimental drugs available to terminal patients.

The issue I have is with the idea that the FDA doesn't serve a purpose, or shouldn't exist, or is somehow being "evil" by requiring drugs to be throughly tested before being put on the shelves.

The issue you have is that no one is arguing against the point you want to make? Isn't that your problem?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's not a "no-brainer". I agree with this law, but it's not a "no brainer" at all.

Remember, thalidomide was once thought to be a pregnancy "wonder drug".

True, but in this case, we're not talking about anti-anxiety and -nausea drugs for pregnant women. We're talking about people who are going to die, anyway. What's the worst that can happen? They die MORE?

As I said, I support this law. I support making experimental drugs available to terminal patients.

The issue I have is with the idea that the FDA doesn't serve a purpose, or shouldn't exist, or is somehow being "evil" by requiring drugs to be throughly tested before being put on the shelves.

Ah. No, I don't have a problem with protecting public safety. Arguably, that's what a government is for. I won't say that the FDA couldn't do its job more efficiently, but then, there's no government agency about which I would say that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

True, but in this case, we're not talking about anti-anxiety and -nausea drugs for pregnant women. We're talking about people who are going to die, anyway. What's the worst that can happen? They die MORE?

As I said, I support this law. I support making experimental drugs available to terminal patients.

The issue I have is with the idea that the FDA doesn't serve a purpose, or shouldn't exist, or is somehow being "evil" by requiring drugs to be throughly tested before being put on the shelves.

No, they're being evil by using protocols that block useful drugs from coming on the market, even where adequate testing has been done in other countries.

Can't say that I'm willing to trust "adequate testing in other countries". They aren't us, and it's not THEIR governments' jobs to protect US citizens. It's OUR government's job to do so.