Erbitux for Americans Too (A lesson in opportunity costs)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | December 3, 2003 | Wall St. Journal Editorial Staff

[Tom D.]

Who says the Swiss are cautious and boring? On Monday they moved decisively out of the neutral column on Erbitux, becoming the first nation on earth to approve the sale and marketing of the revolutionary new cancer drug.

Expectations are that the United States and European Union will soon follow, or else watch as cancer refugees descend on Zurich and Geneva for what is obviously a safe and effective treatment. This is vindication for those who promoted the drug at and outside of ImClone, only to see its potential trampled in the media rush to condemn the stock sales of Martha Stewart and Sam Waksal. But any satisfaction is certainly tinged by the knowledge that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration passed up an opportunity to approve Erbitux nearly two years ago, and that tens of thousands of colorectal cancer victims have since died needlessly premature deaths.

[Tom D.]

Bureaucrats understand that 100 folks who die unnecessarily does not make headlines, but that 1 guy who has a bad reaction will make the front page of every paper in the country. It is clear that bureaucrats and the general public are not familiar with the concept of opportunity costs.

[Savage Beast]

And--I'm not sure that it matters to burocrats--but trial lawyers are watching like hawks for the guy who has a bad reaction, and this slows down the system to a crawl.

Remove litigation from the system, and everyone could afford health care. As it is, no one can.

A catastrophic illness in the family could destroy anyone financially for the rest of his life.

Eliminate the trial lawyers' take, and the unworkable system can be fixed.

I realize that this is beside the point of the article, but a friend of mine is now facing financial devastation because of a catastrophic illness in one of his children.

If given the choice of (1) the present system with the opportunity to sue or (2) affordable health care with no opportunity to sue, most people would choose option #2. I certainly would. The legal system refuses us this option.

Correcting this situation should be a top priority for all Americans.

[The Great RJ]

Gee if 100 people a day died in snowshoe accidents there would be Congressional hearings, the media blaming the Bush administration for killing these people and Ralph Nader's group demanding an international treaty and UN sanctions to ban snowshoe manufacture.