Larry Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 18 minutes ago, Weganator said: Or you can create a system in the US that works to try and guarantee informed consent for patients while also protecting their human rights. We have them. You might think that maybe the line needs to be moved. But rules are in place, and were created for legitimate reasons. The question being discussed is "what do we do to companies who decide "Well, your ethics laws are interfering with our potential profit, so we're going to go someplace where your ethics laws don't count". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weganator Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Larry said: We have them. You might think that maybe the line needs to be moved. But rules are in place, and were created for legitimate reasons. The question being discussed is "what do we do to companies who decide "Well, your ethics laws are interfering with our potential profit, so we're going to go someplace where your ethics laws don't count". I think the question is more is the current FDA regulation set a comprehensive set of appropriate ethics or is there room to help increase innovation while protecting individual rights. The article tries to paint him as synonymous with acts of atrocity because some aspect of current FDA regulations didn't allow individuals like the one in the article to volunteer in the US. The trial appears to have been successful and there isn't patient outcry about a violation of rights. Are there any aspects of this case that could be used as a basis for reform so that future patients can also have the benefits of being in the jurisdiction of the US with additional legal protections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Weganator said: I think the question is more is the current FDA regulation set a comprehensive set of appropriate ethics or is there room to help increase innovation while protecting individual rights. The article tries to paint him as synonymous with acts of atrocity because some aspect of current FDA regulations didn't allow individuals like the one in the article to volunteer in the US. The trial appears to have been successful and there isn't patient outcry about a violation of rights. Are there any aspects of this case that could be used as a basis for reform so that future patients can also have the benefits of being in the jurisdiction of the US with additional legal protections? I think this is mostly political/philosophical rather than anything really related to FDA regulations, other than needing an IRB. Is there a reason they didn't set up an IRB other than they didn't want to? Would an IRB have not let a similar study go forward? Thiel is an extreme libertarian. He probably doesn't think there should be an FDA. Edited August 29, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weganator Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, PeterMP said: I think this is mostly political/philosophical rather than anything really related to FDA regulations, other than needing an IRB. Is there a reason they didn't set up an IRB other than they didn't want to? Would an IRB have not let a similar study go forward? Thiel is an extreme libertarian. He probably doesn't think there should be an FDA. I honestly don't know and would be curious to find out. But as opposed to lazily attempting to lump him in with the human rights violations of past governments, why not interview him and ask him that? (edit: not you personally, the writer of the article) The answer comes back to they have no desire to reevaluate the existing set of government regulations with an eye towards helping business and in turn like to take every opportunity to link Libertarians / free market people to fascists. Edited August 29, 2017 by Weganator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) On 8/29/2017 at 9:05 AM, Weganator said: I honestly don't know and would be curious to find out. But as opposed to lazily attempting to lump him in with the human rights violations of past governments, why not interview him and ask him that? (edit: not you personally, the writer of the article) The answer comes back to they have no desire to reevaluate the existing set of government regulations with an eye towards helping business and in turn like to take every opportunity to link Libertarians / free market people to fascists. But nobody has presented evidence that we should re-evaluate the FDA to help businesses to the point that the creation of an IRB should be completely circumvented. The health care industry certainly isn't struggling from an economic stand point. He just up and ignored existing regulations that were put there to prevent unethical practices that did happen (and not just in other countries or at other times) because of his personal biases. (The US Pharma history has a long track record of questionably ethical activities. You don't have to back to Nazi Germany to see the benefit of the FDA.) FDA regulations recently have under gone a significant amount of studying and alterations. The orphan drug process was altered in 2014 http://pharmaceuticalcommerce.com/brand-marketing-communications/the-business-of-orphan-drugs-is-booming/ And there is talk about doing it again. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm565148.htm To suggest that the FDA and its practices aren't essentially constantly being scrutinized has no basis in reality. Edited August 31, 2017 by PeterMP 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weganator Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, PeterMP said: But nobody has presented evidence that we should re-evaluate the FDA to help businesses to the point that the creation of an IRB should be completely circumvented. The health care industry certainly isn't struggling from an economic stand point. He just up and ignored existing regulations that were put there to prevent unethical practices that did happen (and not just in other countries or at other times) because of his personal biases. (The US Pharma history has a long track record of questionably ethical activities. You don't have to back to Nazi Germany to see the benefit of the FDA.) FDA regulations recently have under gone a significant amount of studying and alterations. The orphan drug process was altered in 2014 http://pharmaceuticalcommerce.com/brand-marketing-communications/the-business-of-orphan-drugs-is-booming/ And there is talk about doing it again. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm565148.htm To suggest that the FDA and its practices aren't essentially constantly being scrutinized has no basis in reality. I repeatedly mentioned the US governments crimes (Guatamala crimes from article)in various posts. Others also helped find other US government examples (Tuskegee). I'm glad we agree that FDA practices should be constantly reevaluated.. some previous poster had used the argument 'the rules are in place for a reason' which is a lazy argument since we always gain new information to reevaluate our practices Edited August 31, 2017 by Weganator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) Expect Trump to bring up that Obamacare is failing when less people sign up for it. Also, it's too complicated. If only we had people who could help folks with selecting insurances. Edited August 31, 2017 by Cooked Crack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 I hate them, they are ruining this country for human beings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Not surprising. I believe they stopped the commercials months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 We can do our own advertising to help people get affordable health insurance. Put it to the Republicans and Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weganator Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 Thanks for helping save my taxes on advertising, it's appreciated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 (edited) They are not saving your taxes, they are giving those savings to corporate welfare. Get a clue! Edited September 4, 2017 by LadySkinsFan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 The Maverick entering Zero ****s Mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Otherwise, McCain votes no. Collins and Murkowski will stay strong too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) Edited September 12, 2017 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 57 minutes ago, visionary said: A lot of ticked-off Bernie-ites might change that, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 I worry that it is the Democratic party version of "Repeal and replace..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 I worry Democrats will make the same mistake Republicans made thinking that simply saying "single payer" is descriptive enough. Single payer for what? Everything? Does this mean if the government won't pay for it, nobody but the patient will, if it is even available? Are we talking communist medicine or socialized medicine, and yes there would be a difference. Does this mean the government will pay X for procedure y and if you want to go to somebody who charges X + $1,000 then the patient must pay the $1,000? Part of me looks at these types of questions and thinks Medicare for all is the simplest solution because we and the market understand it, and it allows for people to buy and use secondary insurance. The other part of me still longs for Hillary/Tsongas care where the government says we can afford to treat A through M. These are the treatments with the best quality of life improvements for the dollar. Our goal is based on strict Utilitarian values of "provide the greatest good for the greatest number." If we get more money, we will try to cover N through S, but really if you want coverage for anything beyond M, you had best purchase supplemental insurance. However, I am well aware this approach of using mathematics in an effort to quantify social good will be seen as heartless by many. I am just a math geek, so solving large problems with an eye toward maximization of some good seems natural to me, sometimes to the point I feel guilty thinking about the healthcare resources my family uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Single payer is pretty clearly the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now