Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court sees no right to unapproved medicines
Reuters ^ | 8 August 2007 | Lisa Richwine

Posted on 08/08/2007 7:49:36 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: metmom
I don’t see that it shouldn’t be their choice.

I'd rather go out knowing I may have put the medical community at least one step closer to helping someone else in my position in the future. For a court to try and deny me that right is just plain silly.
21 posted on 08/08/2007 8:54:22 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I’m getting so sick of the government *protecting* us from ourselves. I don’t like the regulation and they’re treating the populace like children who aren’t smart enough to know any better, yet they are just as human and fallible as the man on the street. There’s nothing about them that makes them more qualified to make those decisions than me.

Bump. Worth repeating.

22 posted on 08/08/2007 8:57:36 AM PDT by 4CJ (Annoy a liberal, honour Christians and our gallant Confederate dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: P-40

Everyone dies sometime, it’s just a matter of from what.

WTH, does the government think it’s protecting us from?
That we might die before our time? Then why are they so busy pulling the plug on people because of *quality of life* issues?

Hypocrites.


23 posted on 08/08/2007 8:58:22 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: metmom
WTH, does the government think it’s protecting us from?

Maybe they are afraid these 'last resort' doctors will expose us to second hand smoke or red M&Ms.
24 posted on 08/08/2007 9:02:56 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: P-40

The horrors.


25 posted on 08/08/2007 9:05:04 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

It just means that the terminally ill will have to go to other countries to get treatment. It’s disgusting. They are dying. Let them try experimental medicine.


26 posted on 08/08/2007 9:06:17 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20
There is no right to health care of any kind.
The is no right to drugs of any kind.
Thee is no right to the product of any manufacture of any kind.

I am not defending the FDA decision in anyway, I too have suffered indirectly from a poor decision by them, but my point is that you have no right to access to the medication.

27 posted on 08/08/2007 9:25:43 AM PDT by Biggs of Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggs of Michigan
but my point is that you have no right to access to the medication.

I read this as the court saying you have no choice as to whether or not you wish to try the offered medication, not that you have a right to the medication.
28 posted on 08/08/2007 9:33:50 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: P-40
no, cause the medication can not be offered. The government of this country is not obligated to any citizen to allow a medication into this country.

The true solution for this is not to allow you to do anything you want to your body anytime you want, that is the abortionist creed and the supporters of RU-486, it is to by law allow or maybe require the FDA to pass medications that are proven safe and effective in other countries.

29 posted on 08/08/2007 10:56:03 AM PDT by Biggs of Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Biggs of Michigan
no, cause the medication can not be offered.

Which is of course ludicrous when the patient is terminally ill...perhaps from lung cancer caused by smoking tobacco, a perfectly legal medicine.
30 posted on 08/08/2007 10:58:42 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: P-40

it is not ludicrous. The situation of the patient my be terminal, but there is no a right. If the manufactures of this medication in, there is a process, a process that could be improved, but a process.

The cause of the medical problem is not relevant to if there is a right. following your logic, you have a right to any quack medication in the world. I don’t think so.


31 posted on 08/08/2007 11:13:29 AM PDT by Biggs of Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Biggs of Michigan
you have a right to any quack medication in the world. I don’t think so

By and large, you do. And by and large, I also have the right to make decisions for myself as regards my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happiness. For a court to think otherwise, is a court that is abusing its power.
32 posted on 08/08/2007 11:22:47 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: P-40

once again, your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not extent to a right to access anything you want. You have no right to access to this medication. You do however have the right to petition the FDA and the Congress to allow access to this medication. No more than you have the right to 20 pounds of bomb grade atomic material. Even though have that material might make you happy.

My example is extreme, but it does illustrate that there is a difference between right and desire.

I am afraid that your idea of freedom is much closer to anarchy than democracy. There is such a thing as rule of law. Some laws are good, others are bad. I suggest that you expend your energies making the laws work for you instead of screaming about non existing rights.


33 posted on 08/09/2007 10:10:37 AM PDT by Biggs of Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Biggs of Michigan
once again, your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not extent to a right to access anything you want.

No one says it does. However, I also own my own body; Congress does not. You may wish to allow the government to control you life to that extent, but I choose not to. I'll stick to the rights enumerated in the Constitution and take the medicine if it may save my life or others.
34 posted on 08/09/2007 10:20:38 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: P-40

You are saying that it does. You are arguing that you have a right to the medication. You have no right of access; period.

That is the only issue that the FDA is enforcing. If you were to gain access to this medication and use it on yourself, you
would be correct, in my mind, that you can take it without fear.

A bit of a look at your idea of my body, my decision:

To a great degree I agree with you, but do not subscribe to the anarchy that you suggest. Mostly because it conflicts with the need to have some order in society. Also it is used to justify or attempt to justify many thing i find wrong.

1. abortion
it is used to justify abortion in general
it is and has been used to justify late term abortion
it is and has been used to justify partial birth abortion
justify 1 million abortions a year

2. Drugs
it is used to justify the abuse of booze in this country. 25,000+ people per year die for this justification

it is used as a justification for recreational drug use in this country, the disaster of homelessness, government handouts, wrecked lives, families. it goes on and on.

it is used to justify the use of medications that have no scientifically provable benefits; used to be called snake oil medications. Possibly you remember the Cancer cure that came out of Mexico that was called Layatrill(sp). It was a fraud, but people with the mind set of my body, my decision used it to justify using this medication. In reality it was toxic to the point where using it for 3 months would kill you.

The insanity that is justified by this attitude would cover pages. Insanity not because you are stupid enough to do these things, no, it is the impact on the rest of us that is the insanity. Every one else is left to pick up the pieces.

Now I do agree with you on some things.
The right to accept or reject medical treatment, including medications, offered by credible medical professionals.

The right to determine how and when you die if you are terminally ill and can rationally make this decision.

The right to consume your desired diet, even if it is dangerous to yourself.

Smoke if you want to, it is legal, stupid but legal.

We walk a thin line between the rights of the person and the need for social order and safety.


35 posted on 08/13/2007 10:00:32 AM PDT by Biggs of Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20
Having a Right to determine if you want such unapproved treatments is one thing. Having an Entitlement to them something entirely else.

However, the FedGgov has ZERO Constitutional authority in this area. Isn't it about time to reign these jerks in?

36 posted on 08/13/2007 10:12:32 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggs of Michigan
The right to accept or reject medical treatment, including medications, offered by credible medical professionals.

And that is exactly what is being offered here. If you are a medical professional specializing in radical treatments of terminally ill patients, you are at the top of the field...and certainly more qualified to determine if a 'last effort' treatment is worth the risk then anyone else out there.
37 posted on 08/13/2007 12:10:21 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

There’s a world of difference between not having the RIGHT to those meds, and being allowed access to those meds. Many here don’t seem to be able to tell the difference.


38 posted on 08/13/2007 12:22:07 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

it must be remembered that everyday lawyers advertise for clients claiming injury from problems with various drugs. Generally the number of people actually harmed is miniscule when compared with the people helped.

The only thing that matters is a lawyer can enrich himself because a drug is not perfect. Rather than go out in traffic and chase ambulances, the lawyer can troll for clients from the comfort of his office with a TV commercial.

The terminally ill will remain that way for the simple reason no judge in his right mind would open his court to lawsuits stemming from a hasty and irrational judgement to give people everything they want.


39 posted on 08/13/2007 12:29:29 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Happiness is a down sleeping bag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20
Eff what people want. The jobs of drug councilors, lawyers, judges, prison guards, and other Drug War Warriors, funded on the government dime are more important than any individual life. /sarcasm.
40 posted on 08/13/2007 12:34:54 PM PDT by jackieaxe (This one hour pre-flight security screening is brought to you by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson