Thursday, July 07, 2005
You can't have your drugs and complain too.
In Newsweek this week, while threatening to ban bulk drug exports, the Canadian Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh was quoted as saying:
"Canada cannot be a drugstore for the United States of America - 280 million people cannot expect us to supply drugs to them on a continuous, uncontrolled basis."
This quote raises an interesting contradiction in America with regards to drug access.
Personally, if I have a fatal-untreatable illness I would definitly opt for a dangerous and experimental drug. The worst that could happen is that I would die anyway, and I would always rather die fighting. But the flip side to this choice: If the experimental drug makes me sicker I have no right to complain.
Here are the two sides:
First: The American people, especially during the 2004 Presidential Race, complained that the U.S. Government should not keep cheaper (and often below FDA standards of testing) foreign drugs from entering the USA and treating our sick and suffering. This is a legitimate argument, let the people decide if the risk is worth it.
Second: As soon as a drug company has to pull a product (read: Vioxx) the same American people complain that the U.S. Government should be more stringent in testing drugs before the American people can purchase them. This too is a valid argument, do not let the public have a drug until it is FDA approved under the strictest of testing standards.
You can not have it both ways!
You cannot complain that cheaper and/or riskier drugs need to be available, and then turn around and complain when a drug causes an adverse effect. Now, I understand that "foreign" drugs does not automatically mean "unsafe;" but, it does usually mean "untested," or not tested to FDA standards.
So I ask you, the American people, to please make up your mind.
Are you educated enough to make your own choice with medication, or do you need a government agency to approve a drug to allow you piece of mind?
For those of you that are still confused, here is quote which may help you:
"You cannot have your cake and eat it too."
"Canada cannot be a drugstore for the United States of America - 280 million people cannot expect us to supply drugs to them on a continuous, uncontrolled basis."
This quote raises an interesting contradiction in America with regards to drug access.
Personally, if I have a fatal-untreatable illness I would definitly opt for a dangerous and experimental drug. The worst that could happen is that I would die anyway, and I would always rather die fighting. But the flip side to this choice: If the experimental drug makes me sicker I have no right to complain.
Here are the two sides:
First: The American people, especially during the 2004 Presidential Race, complained that the U.S. Government should not keep cheaper (and often below FDA standards of testing) foreign drugs from entering the USA and treating our sick and suffering. This is a legitimate argument, let the people decide if the risk is worth it.
Second: As soon as a drug company has to pull a product (read: Vioxx) the same American people complain that the U.S. Government should be more stringent in testing drugs before the American people can purchase them. This too is a valid argument, do not let the public have a drug until it is FDA approved under the strictest of testing standards.
You can not have it both ways!
You cannot complain that cheaper and/or riskier drugs need to be available, and then turn around and complain when a drug causes an adverse effect. Now, I understand that "foreign" drugs does not automatically mean "unsafe;" but, it does usually mean "untested," or not tested to FDA standards.
So I ask you, the American people, to please make up your mind.
Are you educated enough to make your own choice with medication, or do you need a government agency to approve a drug to allow you piece of mind?
For those of you that are still confused, here is quote which may help you:
"You cannot have your cake and eat it too."
