Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that the 3 trillion dollars we have currently spent in Iraq for the last 8 years would have been enough to provide health care to every man woman and child in America for a full decade. I question the Republican policy that war is a moral imperative but that attending to the sick is not.
Now surely the Republicans put attending to the sick at a high priority somewhere, if the sick have enough money to pay to get well, so as not to leech off of people who stay well.
The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) announced yesterday that it would ration the late-stage cancer drug Avastin for breast cancer patients.
Susan B. Komen Foundation for a Cure: Komen for the Cure’s president, Elizabeth Thompson said that the organization is concerned about the potential impact on women who are benefitting from Avastin if the FDA ultimately removes its approval for the drug for breast cancer treatment. “We want to be sure that women who are using Avastin, and for whom it is working, can continue to have access to it, that their insurers will continue to pay for it and that the drug’s manufacturer, Genentech/Roche, continues making the drug available to women through its patient support programs and considers an expanded access program.”
Sally Pipes, Pacific Research Institute: “The FDA claims its decision had nothing to do with Avastin’s cost and was based solely on the drug’s medical effectiveness. This isn’t believable. Every year about 40,000 American women die from breast cancer. Avastin is the last hope for many not to meet that fate. While the drug is costly, it often provides immense benefits to patients.”
That's just ridiculous. Your statement is what I think is wrong with politics today. You think that because other people have a different viewpoint than you, that they must be up to an evil plot. I'm so sick of the far right and the far left.
The Office of New Drugs (OND) recommends withdrawing approval of the breast cancer indication for bevacizumab (Avastin). This indication was approved on February 22, 2008, under accelerated approval provisions for use in combination with paclitaxel for the treatment of patients who have not received chemotherapy for metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer.
As a condition of the accelerated approval, Genentech was required to submit data from two ongoing trials (AVADO and RIBBON1) to provide verification of the treatment effect on progression- free survival (PFS) and to provide additional information on the effects on overall survival (OS). These two trials failed to confirm the magnitude of benefit originally observed in the E2100 study on which accelerated approval was based. In addition, there was an overall increase in serious adverse events related to bevacizumab.
The modest benefit observed with Avastin together with the substantial adverse reactions observed in breast cancer trials to date fail to provide a favorable risk-benefit profile to support continued marketing of Avastin for a first-line metastatic breast cancer indication. It is the conclusion of OND that the breast cancer indication for Avastin be withdrawn.
Seriously these women are DYING this is funny that trials failed to provide a favorable risk-benefit. This is their last chance to fight the cancer!
What part of substantial adverse reactions did you not understand?
Substantial - considerable in quantity
Adverse - acting against or in a contrary direction
Reaction - response to some treatment, situation, or stimulus
Interesting that anyone would post a thread based on a myth that has been proven to be false over and over, guess that is what blind followers (sheep) do. While their fellow sheep will add their approval without question, it only makes those making such wild accusations look foolish in the eyes of the informed readers.
Casper
If you are honestly asking me what I think, and not just being facetious, I will tell you.
I think that it is not in the best interest of the drug industry or the insurance industry to cure disease. I think they pay a lot of money to both parties to make sure that Americans stay sick. Not just in legislation on health care, but by supressing information and also by making sure Americans pump their bodies full of poison on a daily basis.
I don't think the Republican policy towards health care is self sustaining, compassionate, or based on logic.
I think that Republicans don't care about people with diseases, or paralysis, or genetic ailments. Because they block legislation on stem cell research that has been proven to provide relief for any number of diseases and ailments.
I think Republicans are all for government intervention into personal private family medical decisions. Or do you not remember the Terry Schiavo case?
I Think that you have NO idea what socialized health care is, or how that differs from what you call "obamacare".
I don't think any human being should DIE for lack of an 80 dollar prescription.
I think that the 3 trillion dollars we have currently spent in Iraq for the last 8 years would have been enough to provide health care to every man woman and child in America for a full decade. I question the Republican policy that war is a moral imperative but that attending to the sick is not.
I question you saying I am trying to change the subject when I didn't absolve Democrats for their lack of leadership in protecting the health of America. If anything, they have been just as complicit as Republicans in making it nearly impossible for Americans to get and stay healthy. But you, you cannot see past your own political opinions. You have a "with us or against us" mentality. I am fair, b/c I can point out the failings of both political parties. I wonder what it says about you that you can't.
But then again, I do think you are being facetious.
Her "husband", who had left her and started a family of his own still had the right to make the decision, simply by stating that she once told him that in this situation, she would not want to live.
Her parents wanted to care for her for the rest of her natural life.
Instead, the government starved her to death simply because she could not say the words "let me live".
What would be the outrage if the government starved a convicted terrorist to death?
Her "husband", who had left her and started a family of his own still had the right to make the decision, simply by stating that she once told him that in this situation, she would not want to live.
Her parents wanted to care for her for the rest of her natural life.
Instead, the government starved her to death simply because she could not say the words "let me live".
What would be the outrage if the government starved a convicted terrorist to death?
The state allowed Terry S to pass on because she was never going to come back, without a frontal lobe one is little more than a corpse being kept alive. Her husband was doing what he felt his wife wanted and he would know better than anyone, the law in most states agrees with that thought. Her husband stood by her for years and knew it was past time to allow her to pass over, the smear on his reputation was started by her parents and other rightwingers that are willing to do anything to "win" their point. From everything I saw the only person truely interested in Terrys wishes and what was best was her husband. Why on earth would anyone want to keep someone alive that would never get any better, we would not do that to our pet cat or dog but want to do it to humans, wow.
Casper
End of life care decisions are something to be decided by an individual and his or her family. I see many lawsuits in the future from surviving family members who claim a doctor wrongfully convinced a family member to become a Do Not Resuscitate patient.
Who is going to know better about your condition, you & your doctor or your family.
Most good doctors already have the conversation with patient's and have been doing it for decades.
A family should too, well before it boils down to just a emotional decision, but most don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
