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

To: RoosterRedux
There has never been a medical treatment, vaccine, or medicine developed that has not affected someone adversely. It, unfortunately occurs. However, in the absence of this life saving research and development, millions would die from the underlying conditions.

There have been people who have died on the operating table while having tonsils removed - does that mean we should no longer allow it, or worse yet, begin a class action suit to seek damages from all surgeons who have removed tonsils.

I once nearly died of anaphylactic shock following a penecilin dose. Do I think we need to not allow antibiotics to be administered? Not in a million years.

26 posted on 09/18/2011 7:19:24 AM PDT by RobertClark (Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RobertClark

There is a big difference between not making something mandatory and banning it. I would resist mandatory pennicillin shots, too, but that doesn’t mean I would seek to ban it.


120 posted on 09/18/2011 9:47:26 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: RobertClark
Do I think we need to not allow antibiotics to be administered?

No but neither do I think antibiotics be MANDATED by the government.

Medical treatment should be between you and your doctor. The risks vs benefits explained (informed consent).

There have been people who have died on the operating table while having tonsils removed

The patient or guardian had to sign informed consent to the procedure after the risks vs benefits were explained. This is an excellent example of the individual hiring a Doctor and personally agreeing to treatment. No government mandate and your health is your personal private business.

Gardisil is different because the government mandates that you have to have it. The Doctor is now an agent of the government not your personal consultant. The Doctor has no incentive to individualize patient care. In fact the Doctor because he depends on government for his license actually now has a conflict of interest when it comes to explaining why you need the vaccine.

This is typical of the vaccine debate both sides polarize the issue. But the fact remains that Perry has no problem with government mandates the only issue seems to be whether someone can make a good enough argument. This is why we have TARP, Quantitative easing, it's why we are in the foreclosure mess. It seems that Perry has a low barrier to forcing people to do things against their will. So how many government regulations will he agree to because it 'benefits society'. Isn't that why the EPA is choking our economy right now? Isn't that why Obama dumped 500 million into a solar company with no chance of succeeding? Isn't that why we will print money to prop up Europe?

Government is the opiate of the masses. We think have the government do it and it will fix everything.

If that were true then Obama would be the greatest president ever rather than the worst.

The problem with Perry is that he sees government as a solution to a problem so where is the difference between him and Obama. Unless it's I get a liberal government that let's me keep my gun?

138 posted on 09/18/2011 10:27:49 AM PDT by stig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

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