Marquette Warrior: Nanny Nader

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Nanny Nader

Via The World According to Nick:

. . . an example (one of many) were Ralph Nader doesn’t want to let consumers make their own choices about trading off risk and benefit.
Chalk up another moron point to Ralph Nader for unilaterally deciding that people with otherwise untreatable Narcolepsy should not be allowed to decide whether the risk of liver cancer is worthwhile given that they could otherwise have a normal functioning life on the drug.
Nick, after giving details of the withdrawal of the drug, notes a personal story:
Cylert (generic name “pemoline”) has been the most effective treatment for Teresa’s narcolepsy in 24 years since she was first diagnosed. She’s been taking it for most of that time. Now it’s gone.

We discovered this when we tried to refill her standard prescription, just before Christmas, and the pharmacy didn’t have any—and, after some confusion, reported back that the wholesaler didn’t have any either, because (surprise!) it’s no longer being made.

Cylert has been implicated in some people’s liver problems. Teresa is regularly tested and her liver is fine. Evidently Abbott, makers of brand-name Cylert, discontinued it in March—but Sandoz intended to keep making the generic version, until the FDA, pressured by Nader’s group, weighed in to discontinue it entirely—despite a last-minute appeal from the Narcolepsy Network. Thank you, Public Citizen, for completely shafting my wife.
Nick then notes:
Of course, the people who push for these outright bans are ironically usually the same ones who push for a “woman’s right to choose.” Isn’t interesting that they think a person’s ability to consult with their doctor and weigh the pros and cons of medical decisions seems so limited?

These people need to get a serious reality check. There is rarely, if ever, such a thing as a cure that has no side effects. Period. The fact that these people think that any product that has even the smallest flaw should be outright banned is truly astounding. They live in a dream world. Every day, people have to weigh the benefits and consequences of all sorts of things, and have the right to do so for themselves.
Of course, it’s an open question how much of this decision is can be “credited” to Nader, and how much is simply the result of the risk averse FDA bureaucracy. But Nader clearly took a position against consumer choice.

Hopefully, everybody knows that the “right to choose” crowd doesn’t believe in choice. They are simply people who happen to think that abortion is OK.

They are not “pro-choice” where guns are concerned, nor where schools are concerned, nor where consumer purchases are concerned. They are pro-choice only if you want to do something they happen to approve of.


Post a Comment

<< Home