|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 22, 2010 7:58:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Dec 22, 2010 16:54:54 GMT -8
"...the agency is substituting its own judgement..."
The U. S. government is a live, horror story, now.
mAd hAM
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Dec 22, 2010 18:06:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 22, 2010 22:53:06 GMT -8
The FDA explained that it was revoking approval of the drug for that use because it decided that the drug does not provide "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients."
That's the key. A political decision was made, a decision that may cause the early death of many women. Let's put it this way. Perhaps 90% of patients are not helped by this drug. Well, for a bean-counting bureaucrat that's an easy call. Pull the approval, save money. Voila! All is well. That's the ultimate one size fits all thinking of the government. Always has been, always will be. But for the 10% that are helped by the drug? Well, you know, we must all make sacrifices for the greater good, right?
Here's the thing. Before you complain that we have limited resources and tough decisions must be made . . . yada, yada, yada . . . ask yourself this question. How many millions, even billions of dollars are wasted by the federal government every year? How about the millions that go to Public Broadcasting? You think, just maybe, that money might be better spent on paying for this drug, even if it doesn't help all patients? What's more important, Masterpiece Theater or giving a woman a fighting chance to live? Stange as it may seem, that's not a tough call for me.
And, by the way, wouldn't you rather rely on the judgment of the attending physician than that of the bean counter when it comes to determining whether the drug will help a particular woman? Remember, it's a particular woman we are talking about, not a statistic. A woman with a name, a family, a past, and perhaps still some future.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Dec 23, 2010 9:45:31 GMT -8
The FDA explained that it was revoking approval of the drug for that use because it decided that the drug does not provide "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients."That's the key. A political decision was made, a decision that may cause the early death of many women. Let's put it this way. Perhaps 90% of patients are not helped by this drug. Well, for a bean-counting bureaucrat that's an easy call. Pull the approval, save money. Voila! All is well. That's the ultimate one size fits all thinking of the government. Always has been, always will be. But for the 10% that are helped by the drug? Well, you know, we must all make sacrifices for the greater good, right? Here's the thing. Before you complain that we have limited resources and tough decisions must be made . . . yada, yada, yada . . . ask yourself this question. How many millions, even billions of dollars are wasted by the federal government every year? How about the millions that go to Public Broadcasting? You think, just maybe, that money might be better spent on paying for this drug, even if it doesn't help all patients? What's more important, Masterpiece Theater or giving a woman a fighting chance to live? Stange as it may seem, that's not a tough call for me. And, by the way, wouldn't you rather rely on the judgment of the attending physician than that of the bean counter when it comes to determining whether the drug will help a particular woman? Remember, it's a particular woman we are talking about, not a statistic. A woman with a name, a family, a past, and perhaps still some future. AzWm Even in worst case, sounds like drug will still be available "off label". www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/features/avastin-breast-cancer-treatment not bottom line, but drug is issued to "terminal patients". Most "bean counters" I know tend to be conservatives. Glad to know that only conservatives care about women with breast cancer. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 23, 2010 11:04:13 GMT -8
My wife has a similar history. I never find anything on moveon.org or huffington that I want to call to anyone's attention. This, I thought, was note worthy. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Dec 23, 2010 11:32:21 GMT -8
O.K... complex issue and need to hear all sides. It is tough to watch your wife go through breast cancer... mine got lucky, a lot don't. My friend's wife, who was the CEO of SD County credit union, is a survivor. She is still very involved with the Poinsettia Bowl...have a good time at the Q today Win..I'll be there. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 23, 2010 11:44:52 GMT -8
O.K... complex issue and need to hear all sides. It is tough to watch your wife go through breast cancer... mine got lucky, a lot don't. My friend's wife, who was the CEO of SD County credit union, is a survivor. She is still very involved with the Poinsettia Bowl...have a good time at the Q today Win..I'll be there. My Grandson and I will be there also. We are going to meet Nuts and Boltz for a couple beers before going into the tailgate at F2. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 29, 2010 8:06:09 GMT -8
Here is another link to a piece about Obama mandating pulling the plug on Grandma. xrl.us/bic84yNow days a lot of us including me have "living wills", but that is our decision and not the governments. Here is an excerpt from the news piece. "Before Obama tapped Berwick for the Medicare post, Berwick had long applauded Britain's National Health Service, which uses an algorithm to determine whether the aged are worthy of additional expenditures for medical care and advanced treatments." That is a sick idea from a sick Obama appointee. |
|
