Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Differences of opinion-Drug Disclosure

Posted by leo33 on February 17, 2004, at 22:01:15

In reply to Differences of opinion-Drug Disclosure, posted by BJlass on February 16, 2004, at 19:58:52

Oh dear Althea, Let me count the ways to try and explain this so you don't misunderstand me.

> Leo - im going to try this again so im clear >on my position.
> [ 1) I DONT think drug companies should be accountable for the medications they develop because they arent responsible for letting the genie out of the bottle.]

1. But they are responsible, they often pay off the FDA and political connections to get some of these drugs out to market, and to keep some other good drugs from getting into the market from foreign competition.

> [ 2) I also do not blame my doctor for the withdrawl I suffered through. If I took the drug TODAY, and then went through the withdrawl and I hadnt been warned by him- then Id blame him for not warning me about it. When I took it, I honestly dont believe he had enough data in his possesion to make that warning. Need to remember that information sharing today has increased roughly a trillion-fold over what it was five years ago.]

2. I too would rather not blame my doctor but, then the doctor needs to have full disclosure about the drugs, which of course the pharmaceutical companies don't give them. And, I believe the doctor has to be responsible for the care they give their patients. This is what will protect us from the oh so many pdoc quacks out there.

>[ 3)Who let the genie out of the bottle??? The FDA. If i want to market a cyanide capsule as a cure for depression, the only one in a position to let consumers know that the primary side effect of taking this medication is that you'll be dead, is the fda. If they approve this pill for treatment they shoulder the responsibility - without their 'signature' on the form it aint getting to the public. Bottom line: the FDA trials process was flawed when effexor was released and its still flawed today.]

3. They are both responsible in the above mentioned hypothetical situation. At least we have some sort of protection from the FDA as flawed as it is. And as far as the genie in the bottle, wasn't it Christina Aguilera that let her out?

> [ If you want to sue the maker - I say go for it. But, you'll be in the same category, as far as Im concerned, as the guy that sued McDonalds becuase he got heart disease from eating too many big mac's and didnt realize that 5 big macs per day might have some side effects. Or the woman who got five million dollars because she didnt realize the cup of hot coffee she ordered was, in fact, hot.]

I respectfully disagree, it would not be in the same category because the suit would actually be legitimate. The two you mentioned are frivilous and a matter of common sense. They too make me sick to my stomach.

> [ Im fed up with the idea of 'sueing' to right a wrong. The only reason any of us had horrible withdrawl effects is becuase ONE organization said it was ok for us to take this drug. So were clear, that organization is the FDA. Their net wasnt cast wide enough then and it isnt now. Their reporting wasnt complete enough then and it isnt now.]

Well, let me give you a couple of my own examples:

1. Lets say a company makes a car and sells 2 million of them but after a while there have been 20 incidents where the car would spontaneously blow up because of a faulty fuel system. Killing several people in the process. What do you think should be done about that? Most likely there would be lawsuits and the company would recall the car and fix the problem, as they should. I don't see either of these being done with these drugs. In your world there would be no responsibility taken at all.

2. Lets say a company makes a toy for children and markets and sells 30 million toys. Later its found that the toy is defective and kills 120 children, including one of your own, would an apology be accepted? I think not. What if they did not even recall the product or put warning labels on it after it happened. Would that be acceptable to you? I think not. And of course you would not want to sue for the damage done to you or your child would you. Its OK i'll just make another one. I would not want to hold anyone accountable for it. Yea right.

> [ Unfortunately your attention is, in my opinion, directed in the wrong direction. What we need is a congretional hearing on best practices and not a rash of lawsuits that cannot possibly stand to benefit anybody but the lawyers.]

> Sorry, but thats how I see it.

And your opinion is strong and so is mine. Yes, in a perfect world a congressional hearing, debates, and actions correcting these situations would be great. But many of the congress are in the pockets of the large pharmaceutical companies, so I doubt a true solution would be found that way. Unfortunately, we live in a litigation society and many of our problems are solved in the courtroom, like it or not.

Sorry, but thats how I see it.





Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:leo33 thread:53462