kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/23/86)
[ So no one should test drugs for carcinogenic properties? Long
term effects?
I am sure it is in the drug companies interest to do so. I don't
think it should be done at taxpayers expense, is all I am saying. Nor
should a drug be illegal just because such tests have NOT been done,
though certainly potential users should be informed that no tests have
been done.
A drug for AIDS is now undergoing testing. Nobody now gets it
except a handful in a research study. Is it dangerous? Could be.
Does it work against AIDS? Maybe.
Don't you think AIDS patients have a right to buy the drug, given
that they are warned that it has not been tested? This is admittedly
an extreme case, since everyone agrees that untreated AIDS is certain
death. In every case the risks of the drugs must be weighed against
the risk of the disease. This is clear cut with AIDS and terminal
cancer, though that doesn't seem to keep government from banning
UNPROVEN drugs for those invariably fatal conditions.
What about less serious diseases? Why do you assume that doctors
and/or the government should have a monopoly on weighing possible
risks against possible benefits? It seems to me that it should be up
to the patient to decide. The doctors, pharmacists, and government
should only play an advisory role.
...Keith
[ I am uncomfortable with the thought of a doctor coming along after 5
years and saying, "well, you shouldn't have been taking that allergy
drug, fella - it causes leprosy! Gee, I'm sorry, but you know, let
the buyer beware!" As usual, I am not so convinced about this sort of
thing as you are (this does *not* necessarily mean you should try and
convince me though! :-) -CWM]
-------kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/03/86)
[ I am uncomfortable with the thought of a doctor coming along
after 5 years and saying, "well, you shouldn't have been taking
that allergy drug, fella - it causes leprosy! Gee, I'm sorry, but
you know, let the buyer beware!" ... -CWM]
This is the real world. Drugs do have side effects. The risks and
benefits of a drug must be weighed by SOMEONE. I say that someone
should be the person at risk. You imply it should be doctors and/or
government bureaucrats, and the patient should have no say in the
matter.
It isn't fair to use the existence of side effects against my
position. The side effects would be just as great whether the risks
and benefits were weighed by a doctor or by a patient. In fact, you
never say in your leprosy scenario just who selected that allergy
drug. I could have used the very same paragraph and said "by the way,
this drug was suggested by the doctor" to bolster MY case.
...Keith
[ Clearly, it doesn't matter who suggested the drug: it could be
nobody beyond the ad for the drug ("clears sinuses and whitens teeth",
or whatever). In a purely libertarian society, the seller of the
drug is within his rights to sell anything to anyone who will buy,
with things balancing out afterward. A typical rejoinder to
unregulated medicine is that word will get around and the seller will
not be able to sell any more. This is not so good for the people who
get zapped before word gets around. Is this such a good thing? - CWM]
-------