# Terri Schiavo debate



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

*would you let her die?*

i know it's a cruel topic, and i wondered why it wasn't mentioned here.

Brakes my heart, but i think i'd let her go.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It is a very difficult topic but I truly wonder whether the people who want to keep her in a vegetative state are really acting in her best interests. My wife and I have made it perfectly clear to one another that we would each want the other to pull the plug. I do realise there is a fine line but she told her husband that she didn't want to be maintained on life-support and her wishes should be granted. That this legal battle has been going on for so many years, is also tragic.

If you do not wish to be in the same predicament, make sure your next of kin knows how you feel (although I doubt such extended legal interventions would be allowed in Canada).


----------



## sccoaire (Feb 11, 2005)

I truely believe in the right to die, to some degree of course. In her case, her husband would know what is best for her, not her parents. So yes, they should let her die, but what I don't accept is "unplugging" her and letting her die slowly, deprived of food and water. That's atrocious. 

In the past, when something like this made the news, it was about "unplugging" the person, which would subsequently pass away soon after... while in this case, the person lives for 5-7 days after being unplugged.

One thing I like about how the medias are handling this, is that they make a point to tell their readers/viewers that this IS something that needs to be talked about with your loved ones.


----------



## scootsandludes (Nov 28, 2003)

I haven't really been paying to much attention to this subject, but I understand that she's in a vegetative state. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, means she's brain dead, or her brain stem is dead, but the rest of the body is functioning. 
Last i check you are legally dead if your brain stem is dead, and you are still considered alive even if the rest of your body is dead if your brain stem is still hanging on. Medics as I understand can revive a person if they're not breathing or the heart is not pumping blood as long as the brain stem is working, but can't if the brain stem is dead.

Also the media shows this woman from years ago, why not show her now, so the public can have an opinion. 

I guess, if there's no chance of her waking up 'cause she's brain dead, then yeah pull the plug, why is it even an issue? Just a waste of time, money and space. On the other hand if she's just in a very long coma....

vince


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I think I would, gives her a better start on the next life, why should she be mucking around here now when she can just come back in a better form. I know people have attachment issues, mainly because those close to them bring them love and warmth, and there is nothing wrong with that, but sometimes it's ok to let go and let the cycle turn. I don't wanna turn my Grandma into a Darth Vader!!
I love Bush's Culture of Life campaign, wow that man has heart... Bawhahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaa!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Her brainstem is "mush" to quote a physician. It is cruel to let her die of starvation and dehydration but that's what their law demands. No one can intervene and shorten her life by positive intervention.

There needs to be more debate on assisted suicide. It goes on all the time. Many compassionate physicians will allow terminally ill patients access to enough morphine that it accelerates their death but this is not done in the open as they could be suspended. On the otherhand, many terminally ill patients wish to live as long as possible and their rights are (and should be) respected and their caregivers do everything they can for the patient. There have to be precautions in place to prevent abuse but I think that in cases such as this, it is inhumane both to keep her alive and to let her dehydrate. For compassionate reasons, this woman should be administered a shot of KCl. However, if a caregiver did that, they would be liable for unlawful homocide.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Personally, if it were me, I would want someone to end my mere existence. I have told my wife as such.

On an even more personal note, I have a 21 year old daughter who possesses only a bit more cognitive ability than Terri Schiavo. She is fed with a gastrostomy tube, totally unable to walk or use her hands, but is a bit aware of her surroundings. Music is her one link with the outside world, depite cortical deafness and cortical blindness. Shaina should have been allowed to die with some dignity when she was born, but the doctors used every means possible to "save" her, although we were never asked if we wanted various procedures utilized. At one point, she was the most profoundly disabled child in the entire NL school system. Every time she has gone in for surgery, we put a "DNR" on her file. I can't imagine if she ever suffered any more brain damage what her life would be like. Some people have been horrified at our DNR request on her hospital chart, but I ask them to spend a day in my shoes before they decide to start casting stones.

So, life is precious if there is some degree of "quality of life". However, to merely exist is no life.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gastonbuffet, for the record, there is no "plug" to unplug. She is not on a respirator.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Sorry Dr. G, i was just talking lightly. Paix


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gb, I know that you meant no disrespect. You are a good person at heart. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr. G., I am deeply touched that you chose to share the information regarding your daughter. May we all gain wisdom from your words, difficult as they may be. I wish you and your entire family well, and support your DNR decision.

You are a man among men, sir.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

I too agree there should be more debate on euthanasia. Leaving her die slowly is cruel and yet the only choice to end her life. We are more humane to our pets then our human loved ones. My friend had to make a decision along with her husband about what to do with her father-in-law. The only choice, after a severe stroke was to let him die of starvation (I don't think they are allowed to deny water which would end his life faster) or have an operation. They opted for the operation, not because they didn't want to end his suffering but because they couldn't stand the thought of him dying that way. He did die shortly after, in a more comfortable way than starvation so they felt they had made the right decision. Woe is Canada for not allowing more choices.  

Dr G - I appreciate you sharing your story about your daughter and I am not surprised that the doctors did not honour your DNR requests or your request to allow your daughter to die shortly after birth as statistically doctors are the most afraid of death (I learned this in a biomedical ethics course) and DNR requests and living wills are up to a treating physician's descretion so they are not always honoured. 

I have left the decision with my loved ones who have the right of attourney over me if something goes wrong. I hope they never have to make such a decision!


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

Very sad situation ... As a parent I would eat glass and razor blades with a smile to keep my child from harm and pain . But as some one who took care of my mother for nearly a year while she died , and doing so spent a lot of time in hospitals seeing others die . I have to say that this would be the “best “ way for this woman to die ( of all the options given )

Her brain damage will not improve , there is no hope of her being “her” again 

Any one who tried to control their weight with a “eating disorder” as this women did , I can not picture wanting to languish in a hospital waiting for an infected bed sore or pneumonia to take their life . (thus supporting the husband’s argument that this is not her wish to be kept alive) 

Second , since she is not actively ending her own life by her own hand , it is not suicide and there for not a mortal sin ( nullifying the second argument of her parents) 

I feel for both sides , The woman they love I feel did not want to be this way and should be made comfortable and let die .


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I think there is something else to consider here. There is no proof that what the husband is saying is truly honest. Are we going to now let the courts decide this women's fate based on hear say from the husband. I don't know about you but that seems kind of scary.

There is also alot of others rumors floating around. I heard for the first few years he never said anything about her wishes to die and now he is. There are also alot of rumors about his activities with trying to kill her with insulin. I also don't know what to believe about her condition. How bad is she. I hear she responds to people, smiles, acknowledges pain, reacts to light, etc. I don't know what to believe but I would lean to the side of life. Starvation? Come on we don't let animals die that way but we are willing to let her die that way. I have also heard that she improved with treatment but the husband keeps getting in the way with that. He has recieved a bunch of money that was supposed to go to her treatment and I hear it hasn't.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Merci, Sinc and MBD, for your kind and thoughtful words.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

My wife is a physician and she told me last night that this whole legal tussle going on in the U.S. *would not happen in Canada* with our system. The custodial power lies with the spouse then follows through the next of kin. The decisions are irrevocable by any outside legal forces except for criminal suspicion of financial/personal gain.

This last ditch meddling by the evangelical right-wing smacks of political system in the U.S. that deeply influenced by powerful lobby groups.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I like how Jeb Bush has upgraded her condtion Mildly comatose. I've been comatose before, so I guess I can relate to her situation. I was 11 at the time, and have since made a complete recovery, after relearning how to basically do everything again. At least they tell me I made a 100% recovery! 

I really wonder if this is being so blown up in the media to take a little heat off the war, I'm inclined to believe that it is!!


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> My wife is a physician and she told me last night that this whole legal tussle going on in the U.S. *would not happen in Canada* with our system. The custodial power lies with the spouse then follows through the next of kin. The decisions are irrevocable by any outside legal forces except for criminal suspicion of financial/personal gain.
> 
> This last ditch meddling by the evangelical right-wing smacks of political system in the U.S. that deeply influenced by powerful lobby groups.



There is criminal suspicion. There are nurses saying he intentionally tried to kill her, he is intentionally trying to prevent recovery, and suspicion as to whether he inflicted injuries on her to begin with. The rumor is she got this way from a heart attack. But I have also heard she had injuries to her back and a broken femur. He lives with another women and has kids with this other women. He has motives. Nobody knows the facts and all information is muddy right now. Unless the people who are unplugging her know the FACTS they should plug her back in until this is resolved. 


Those Damn Right Wingers! I can't believe they would want keep someone alive. Those Parents trying to get in the way too. Gees don't these people have any compassion. Why won't they just let this women starve to death?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno,

If, after a decade of legal procedures including State, Federal and Appeals courts that have delved into every nook and cranny of this case, you are saying that the facts are still unknown, then your legal system is in a far worse mess than Canada's. There are facts in this case and there are lobbyists on both sides who are spreading disinformation, innuendo and rumours. The very sad part of this is that the case has been politicized to the hilt and turned into yet another circus. This case should have been settled many years ago.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Rosie Dimanno makes it very clear how she feels in todays Toronto Star.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Dr. G,

I too was touched by your candor. As a doctor once told me: it's not the quantity of life, but the quality. My thoughts are with you and your family.

I think the mannor in which she is to die is cruel and unjust. As stated before, we give animals more dignity and ease their suffering when we put them down.


----------



## paul_sells_macs (Aug 31, 2004)

Would I switch her off? 

Absolutely.

My wife and I have discussed this and we both feel the same way - although she now thinks I have a Do Not Resuscitate order in place even for a cough or cold!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I presume that smiley face was a brain burb SINC (I get them too). There's nothing amusing about this case (or any situation involving decisions like this).

There's a case of a 10 year old Albertan child in the Globe and Mail today who has a very rare enzyme disorder (Hurler/Scheie syndrome) that is killing him (life expectancy is 20). There is an experimental drug that reduces the symptoms and increases quality of life (and perhaps length) and he's been given it on a clinical trial. That trial has now ended. The drug costs $17,000 a week. The child will clearly die without it (and may in any case) but it will cost almost $1 million a year for this one drug for this one child. Treating this one child will deny treatments of many others yet denying him the drug will condemn him to death.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> I presume that smiley face was a brain burb SINC (I get them too). There's nothing amusing about this case (or any situation involving decisions like this).
> 
> There's a case of a 10 year old Albertan child in the Globe and Mail today who has a very rare enzyme disorder (Hurler/Scheie syndrome) that is killing him (life expectancy is 20). There is an experimental drug that reduces the symptoms and increases quality of life (and perhaps length) and he's been given it on a clinical trial. That trial has now ended. The drug costs $17,000 a week. The child will clearly die without it (and may in any case) but it will cost almost $1 million a year for this one drug for this one child. Treating this one child will deny treatments of many others yet denying him the drug will condemn him to death.


 That is absolutely disgusting.

How can a pricetag be put on someone's life?? This boy was a guniea pig for this expermental drug and now in order to live he has to pay $17K a week???


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> I presume that smiley face was a brain burb SINC (I get them too). There's nothing amusing about this case (or any situation involving decisions like this).QUOTE]
> Yep, sometimes the fingers do things autmatically.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Dudireno,
> 
> If, after a decade of legal procedures including State, Federal and Appeals courts that have delved into every nook and cranny of this case, you are saying that the facts are still unknown, then your legal system is in a far worse mess than Canada's. There are facts in this case and there are lobbyists on both sides who are spreading disinformation, innuendo and rumours. The very sad part of this is that the case has been politicized to the hilt and turned into yet another circus. This case should have been settled many years ago.



There is one fact. We don't know what her wishes would be. 

There is a great danger here, that of granting license for the elimination of incapacitated people, especially on the say-so of people who can hardly be trusted to have the patients' best interests at heart.

Am I alone on this? It is better to error on the side of life. What if she wants to live? Think about it.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MaxPower, this is a true moral dilemma. What is the price of a life is what is calculated everyday in assessing treatment options. In all provinces, there is a fixed annual drug budget. Along side it is a list of eligibility criteria that sorts patients into those eligible and those not. This is true for all diseases. Your place on a transplant waiting list, for example, is dictated by your age, overall health and other measurements. Ditto for elective surgeries and other non-life threatening interventions. The criteria are, in large part, sensible but they are also a direct reflection of the fact that the budget is capped and much less than required to fund every person of need.

This is also partly why our drug prices are lower than the US because the provinces have significant buying power (compared with smaller HMOs etc). If we paid the same rate as HMO's we would not be able to treat half as many people for the same money.

In the case of the Albertan boy, he is of aboriginal descent and his healthcare provision is the responsibility of the Federal body that oversees health - Health Canada. They, of course, have similar criteria for drug eligibility (although I might add that despite "universal health care" the eligibility criteria and the "listed drugs" vary from province to province. Drugs that are paid in Ontario may not be covered in BC and vice versa.

This was part of the rationale for the universal drug plan in the Health Accord.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Not sure what I would do; we don't get much in the way of substance from CNN or anyone else about the issues she and her family faces medically and the repercussions of the choices, if you can call them that.

I've dealt with the issue personally and I feel comfortable with my family's decisions, but they were made from an informed perspective. I think we should let her husband deal with it and if there's conflict within the family about it then that's very sad but certainly not something the public should be musing over.

Getting Congress involved is simply stupid; first of all they are pandering to a public (they knew the law would be ineffective when they passed it, but did it anyway for brownie points with the electorate which is patently dishonest; the worst kind of politics). Secondly, bad law is often made when it's motivated by a specific example and it's rarely a good thing for the future. Some sober second thought is in order when you draft a bill, not an emotional roller coaster.

We have a perfectly good example in Canada and Robert Latimer could tell you a thing or two about being caught in unintended consequences of laws passed without proper consideration of the implications for everyone and every circumstance.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

UTBJW,

Thanks for explaining the process for treatment.

However, the point I was trying to make is economics (cost of the drug = supply and demand) vs. humanity. Is the almighty dollar more important than saving a life?? This was an ethics debate we had back when I was in college.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> There is one fact. We don't know what her wishes would be.
> 
> There is a great danger here, that of granting license for the elimination of incapacitated people, especially on the say-so of people who can hardly be trusted to have the patients' best interests at heart.
> 
> Am I alone on this? It is better to error on the side of life. What if she wants to live? Think about it.


No, you are not alone. This is not black and white which is why the legal process has gone on for so long. For all we know, if there is any sentience remaining in her, she is constantly praying for someone to end her misery but cannot communicate that wish. If she has no sentience, then I do not think she is truly alive. I know what I would want, but I would not presume that on anyone else. Since her wishes are the only relevant issue, we have to go by those wishes and court after court has decided that there is sufficient evidence that her wish is not to live in a vegetative state.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

MaxPower said:


> However, the point I was trying to make is economics (cost of the drug = supply and demand) vs. humanity. Is the almighty dollar more important than saving a life?? This was an ethics debate we had back when I was in college.


Maxpower, with all due respect..... wake up. the almighty dollar IS more important than saving
lifes
countries
world
future.....etc 

should it be more important , that's the question.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MaxPower, human health is all about economics. Where do you draw the line? In Kenya, a life-saving drug that cost $10 a week means it doesn't get prescribed. What if a drug cost $50,000 a week? The medical profession and funding bodies (departments of health, insurance agencies, etc) define what the value of human life is everyday.

The cost of a drug is complex and often driven by the savings it makes to the health system. For example, a drug that allows a hospital to discharge a patient 2 days early will be charged at, say 20% less than the cost of that extended stay, even if it costs the company 20 cents to make. Drug development and marketing costs are not divulged by companies. They are for-profit. There is no relationship between actual drug price and its actual cost to the company. Some drugs make lots of money, others make little. Some have huge advertising, others none (because they are single source). As soon as a drug comes off patent, it usually becomes cheaper, to compete with the generics.

Many drug companies have "compassionate grounds" programs where they will make available a certain amount of a drug for a lower cost but these might also be seen as having marketing value (improving the profile/image of the company).


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

gastonbuffet said:


> Maxpower, with all due respect..... wake up. the almighty dollar IS more important than saving
> lifes
> countries
> world
> ...


 Precisely my point. (I was playing Devil's advocate there)

And UTBJW just proved that.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

So let the government decide the price of a drug and how much is produced. Its obvious that is what you want. Then nobody will make an evil profit.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> So let the government decide the price of a drug and how much is produced. Its obvious that is what you want. Then nobody will make an evil profit.


Not very helpful Dudireno..... The drug companies own the drugs. They've invested in their development. They set the prices. This is fact. For orphan drugs, the companies are subsidized for development but those are special cases and without the subsidy there would be no business case (due to lower numbers of patients). The generics industry helps to rein in profits to some degree, but they have much smaller develoment costs (they copy, not invent). 

But this industry is failing us. They develop incremental drugs to maintain patent status and focus on the most profitable treatments (duh). Of course they follow the money but due to demographics, they are on an unsustainable economic plan which assumes there is an infinite capacity to pay escalating drug costs. As the population ages, the sustainability of insurance payments and medicare is very unclear. I don't know the solution, but the big pharmaceutical companies know that their market is vastly changing.

Hey, BTW, this is not an anti-American rant!! Many large pharmas are european. It's also not an anti-big pharma rant (although some of their practices are less than honest). I just think that the pharmaceutical industry needs significant re-adjustment to face the realities of the world.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> There is one fact. We don't know what her wishes would be.
> 
> There is a great danger here, that of granting license for the elimination of incapacitated people, especially on the say-so of people who can hardly be trusted to have the patients' best interests at heart.
> 
> Am I alone on this? It is better to error on the side of life. What if she wants to live? Think about it.


As I understand it what's left of her brain is mush and spinal fluid, or something along those lines. Given these circumstances, it seems unlikely that she is able to wish anything anymore, for herself or anyone.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> As I understand it what's left of her brain is mush and spinal fluid, or something along those lines. Given these circumstances, it seems unlikely that she is able to wish anything anymore, for herself or anyone.



That maybe. I don't trust the information. From what I have heard she can tell nurses she is in pain. She is on pain meds so she must feel something. She can situp, she smiles, she enjoys pudding and soft foods. I have also heard she has improved with physical therapy and occupational therapy and her husband has been accused with interfering with that. Doesn't sound like someone who brain is incapable of thinking. 

Oh yea and I hear the husband never said she didn't want to live like this until 7 years later. Multiple nurses who have taken care of Terri are coming out. What do you believe. I don't know. I would like to see her for myself. All I know is it sounds fishy. I don't have a problem at all if the women wants to die. I am not convinced she does. We are going to put all this belief in some guy who is already living with and having children with another women but won't divorce Terri. The parents have begged him to divorce her and they will take financial responsibilty. It shows we all need to make sure our wishes are known before something like this happens to us.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Hey, BTW, this is not an anti-American rant!! Many large pharmas are european. It's also not an anti-big pharma rant (although some of their practices are less than honest). I just think that the pharmaceutical industry needs significant re-adjustment to face the realities of the world.



No its an anti-capitalist rant. 

The industry is not failing you. They provide our society with a plethera of drugs that are cost effective treatments, save lives, and improve the quality of life. I would call that far from failing you. 

And I don't mean to sound like a broken record but it is the government that drives up the cost of development. It is the government that doesn't allow drugs on the market that could prevent death and pain. How about letting the citizens make informed decisions on their own as to whether they want to risk their lives on drugs. There would be far more drugs to choose from and reduced costs if their were not so many road blocks. But you would have to take responsibility for the choices you make. But I don't think you give society enough credit to think for themselves. It seems to me you think the government is here to protect everybody from everything.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

First, I haven't read through this entire thread, so if someone has already said this then I apologize. 

We put animals out of their misery and are praised for doing so. Why does it become inhumane to euthanise a human? I have a problem with her starving to death. Why can't they just give her some kind of lethal injection? 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Vioxx? Do people understand the risk? This drug is likely safe for most people unless they have a heart condition (a fair number of the target population does). The FDA can't seem to please anyone. They are accused of being in bed with the drug makers who accuse them of being too hard on evaluating drugs. I think I would rather listen to the FDA than GSK or Pfizer.

It was not an anti-capitalist rant either. The drug industry does a reasonable job in many areas but not all. Yet it squeezes out competition in the areas it is not interested in (due to profitability). I don't expect the drug industry to make drugs for which it cannot recuperate costs but I do expect the industry not to interfere with the development of agents in those non-profitable areas (they claim that the drugs may be used for other conditions that would overlap their interests).

But things are changing. In the last 5 years, the idea of independent scientists developing drugs has taken hold. Am just off to a seminar right now.....


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

UTBJW, being that you are in or close to that industry, would it not benefit the drug company to have a living 'experiment' carry on for some time to come. I suppose it would be there option, but they could gain some valuable insight into how their drug worked in the field by donating, or letting it be sold at a lower price in order to gather some data. I realize that one subject does not a study make. 

We will never know the cost of R&D for this drug but being that the disease is very rare, their chances of mass production and profit are not very high and thus it will likely remain expensive.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

The only thing I am sure about is that once a decision is made to discontinue support then the only right decision from that point on has got to be euthanization. The whole situation is very sad. 

I think what Dr. G said about walking in others' shoes is good advice.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

It is perfectly natural for a disease with far more victims to get more attention and resources devoted to it. That is what the drug companies do. These companies react to the market. They do what the consumers want. The consumers tell them what they want by using their buying power. If the company makes a drug and can't sell it the market is telling them you can't make this drug cost effective enough to make it worth it. This is the most fair and efficient system known to man. 

The FDA is not the only place to get information as to whether drugs are safe or not. Why do you still turn to the gov for all your needs. I wouldn't trust a drug companie's own opinions either. That is why when I buy a car I go to multiple independent sources to research which car is best for me. You would have to turn to consumer reports, independent medical journals, word of mouth, news alerts, and physicians advice as to whether you should take a drug. The FDA takes away this competition and makes it virtually unprofitable for independent people to compete in a market of consumer drug protection. The AMA is heavily tied to the gov and protects its own (Rich Doctors) and is responsible for a wide variety of journals which also reduces competition. These services could be very profitable if they weren't competing with a government program funded by tax dollars.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Eukaryotic said:


> The only thing I am sure about is that once a decision is made to discontinue support then the only right decision from that point on has got to be euthanization. The whole situation is very sad.
> 
> I think what Dr. G said about walking in others' shoes is good advice.



I totally agree but many experts down here keep saying it is a totally humane way to die. They actually say it is euphoric and painless. I don't get it. If your going to do just do it. It hurts to imagine one of my family going that way.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The point about the FDA is that they are meant to be objective. How do you know when you go to your physician that he/she is not getting kickbacks for prescribing a particular drug? Everyone complains about the FDA which means that they are probably doing a reasonable job.

The NIH is investing a couple of billion dollars over the next decade into development of candidate drugs for diseases. They are not doing this in competition with the pharmaceutical industry but are, instead, hoping to kick-start programs that will then be developed into products by those companies. I see this as a very positive thing as big pharma has the infrastructure for production, testing and marketing which are all essential elements of any new pharmaceutical.

In the case of the rare genetic disease, Genzyme, the company that developed the drug, now has the data to show it works and so now want to sell it to recoup costs. However, there will likely be an enquiry since the drug was initially developed by an NIH researcher who handed it off and Genzyme has not defended its pricing strategy (not surprisingly, parents of patients with the disease are crying foul of the cost - it is an enzyme that can be made for dollars). Hopefully, a compromise will be achieved but I'm sure other truly expensive drugs will come along for other, currently incrable diseases.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Though I know what my decision and my wife's decision would be if either of us were in a similar state, it's not my call whether she should be allowed to live or die.

Nor is it a decision for her parents, the state of Florida, Congress, Jeb or George Bush's.

The decision rests with her husband and in the seven years her parents and increasing numbers of meddlers and do-gooders have been fighting him they have failed to raise sufficient doubts in court about his motivation or Terri Shiavo's intent.

Both he and her parents have my sympathy for the unfortunate condition of their loved one and for the public and political spectacle the situation has become.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I did a lot of reading on the Schiavo case last night, and I find it hard to escape the conclusion that we all ought to butt out of this private matter.

What is most tragic, to my mind, is that Terri Schiavo has been turned into a political football by at least two kinds of extremists, and she will be forever remembered for her last days, not her best days. 

As to the core question: would she want to live this way? I doubt very much she would want to live this way, and the courts keep reaching the same conclusion. That's as close as I can get to an answer on that one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A valid point, iMatt. This is why I have a living will. While it might not have the legal status of my regular will, I want one and all to know that I DO NOT want to merely be kept alive. I would rather go quickly, via an injection, than to starve to death, but this form of euthanasia is still not legal in Canada. I am not one who takes pain well, and I would not go "gently into the night". In my daughter's case, she should have been allowed to die with some dignity. In my case, I do not want someone to wonder what my wishes are re merely keeping me alive.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gastonbuffet, might you change the title of this thread, since there are no "plugs" in this case to unplug? Just a friendly suggestion.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

I was going to make the same request as Dr. G. to change the thread title. I have learned a lot from this thread and feel that it's a good discussion, but every time I see the title, I feel uncomfortable.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

This is incredible!

iMatt you ask for everybody to but out of this private matter but the cops came in and pulled the plug on her feeding tube. You have no problem with a squad of policemen preventing Terri's parents from giving her food or water? Is that butting out????  

We are being told she is being allowed to die a natural death. That might make sense if she was terminally ill. The only thing she is dying from is lack of food and water. The same thing any of us would die from. 

Many seem certain that Terri is vegetative, does not understand what is going on around her and cannot respond. But Carla Sauer Iyer, a nurse who attended Terri for more than a year, has contradicted all of this. Moreover, she has painted a very different picture of Michael Schiavo than the one he presents to the courts and to the media

You are unlikly to hear her eyewitness account of events in mainstream media. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post

Her sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, is that she reported to the police that she had found Terri in both medical and emotional distress after a closed door visit by her husband -- and that she also found a vial of insulin, as well as needle marks on Terri, after Michael Schiavo's visit.

According to this nurse, Michael Schiavo complained that his wife wasn't dying fast enough -- only the word he used was not wife or woman but "Bitch".

I have heard her speak in interviews on the radio. Look it up!!!

Carla Sauer Iyer 

She is not the only one but she signed an affidavit long before all of this media hype.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

A lot of us have said, if it were me in Terri's place I'd want to die therefore she must as well. Fair enough, in your good health looking at someone confined to a bed, life support or wheelchair you many truly feel you'd rather be dead and may even make a living will indicating that you'd want to die or put to death should euthanasia be a possibility.
The only thing is your desire for death may change when you are actually faced with those circumstances. I bet if you asked Christopher Reeves when he was still leaping tall buildings if he'd rather be dead than be paralyzed from the neck down he'd likely have said yes. Its a normal reaction people of good health have to the prospects of a disabled existence. I'm sure many here would say the same thing if faced with Christopher Reeves final years. The fact of the matter is once he was actually living that reality he fought with all he could muster to live.
I understand the sentiment many feel that they'd rather die than face a disabled existence but if you were actually in those shoes, I think your wishes could change but maybe not. 
If the orders are set for your death you may have no voice to stop it so think good and hard before you sign your life away.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> gastonbuffet, might you change the title of this thread, since there are no "plugs" in this case to unplug? Just a friendly suggestion.


i tried, honest, and all i could do is change the title of my first post.
need instructions .


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The title of your first post is the title of the thread is it not?

Try changing that title and see if it works.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Dudireno, I did come across the statements of Ms. Iyer in my reading last night. The problem with them seems to be that she makes some outrageous claims, such as that her notes in Terri's chart were systematically excised, and that she saw those notes in the garbage and did nothing. Well, there's a big problem right there: as I understand it, tampering with the chart is a serious offence and breach of professional ethics, <i>and so is failing to report such tampering</i>. And yet she supposedly allowed this tampering to go on for years before mentioning it to anyone?

As I understand it, her affidavit was rejected by the original court as being unbelievable for that and other reasons. Most importantly, though, is that evidence such as this is trumped by hard medical evidence and professional diagnoses, as different courts have ruled time and again.

That said, I don't feel qualified (as you apparently do) to argue this any further than that: this is a private case that has been dragged into the limelight with a mountain of info spanning 15 years and spun every which way by both sides. I do not feel even remotely qualified to make a firm judgment one way or the other, because I'm neither a lawyer, an interested party, or a doctor, and if I were a doctor I wouldn't have examined the patient. And beware any doctor willing to "diagnose" any patient based on a short video clip or a single slice of brain scan from nine years ago -- and there are many such doctors around these days.

That's what I mean by butting out: we, the general public, can't possibly make sense of the mountain of evidence before us, and we can't even see the most important medical evidence at all -- just some snippets that have wound up on the public record. Therefore we are not qualified to render firm judgment on the case at hand. It is presumptuous for you and me to second-guess all the courts that have ruled in the matter (including the Supreme Court of the United States.) All we can do is say what we might do were we faced with a similar circumstance. And that is the only good I see coming from this case: many more of us will now make our wishes clearer to our loved ones.

Anyway, I found the following blog posting and comments highly interesting (yes, I did read almost all of it last night). I'm linking the page to one particularly compelling opinion, but there are many more worth reading. Yes, some of these people do overstep in their interpretations of the scan at the top of the page, IMHO. Regarless, there are many interesting points there.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archiv...at-scan-of-terri-schiavos-brain#comment-29391

Finally, I found this gentleman's thoughts quite compelling, and they inspired my much shorter statement of a similar nature:



> <i>From http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/21/a-few-essential-schiavo-links/</i>
> 
> On a personal level - and I acknowledge that Terri may not have felt the same way - the more I think about this case, the more horrified I become imagining myself in Schiavo’s position.
> 
> ...


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Mods, would you please merge this new thread with "would you unplug her", under this new heading? Many people feel the previous title is inappropriate.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

It sounds like butting out would mean not feeding this person and believing the courts(who you admit they rejected evidence, sounds like a good lawyer to me) and a suspect husband. Screw the parents, screw the brother and sister forget the nurses testimony (you know those closest to Terri) and butt out.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> That is absolutely disgusting.
> 
> How can a pricetag be put on someone's life?? This boy was a guniea pig for this expermental drug and now in order to live he has to pay $17K a week???


I agree with you... in this case the drug company benefited immensely from this patient. They have an obligation in mind to continue his treatment at their cost.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

No, Dudireno, it means accepting the rule of law and the judicial process. This case has been fought for seven years and ruled upon in one way or another by numerous courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. It is presumptuous for us laypeople to assume, without knowing all the facts, that this whole seven-year process has led to incorrect medical conclusions and murderous actions.

If you read some of the debate I linked to (search for Iyer within your browser for that particular part of the discussion) you'll see that the courts considered and rejected Iyer's evidence, <b>giving reasons</b>: 



> The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would “call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter.” The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges.


You might also want to note that the "Guardian ad Litem" mentioned in the above was a neutral third-party appointed by Jeb Bush, whose report concluded, among other things, that the medical diagnosis of persistent vegetative state was correct.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

It's money iMatt. Put your glasses on. He refuses to divorce her. He has been living with another women. Since you know so much about the case why don't you discuss how much money is involved. 

Don't give me this rule of law and judicial process crap. The jews were sent to concentration camps through judicial process. Thats why this is so huge. We are going to let judges who are appointed not elected decide the fate of people based on the hear say on another person. I call Bull%^&#

If this is what we are going to do we better let kovorkian out of jail. Oh yea did we forget he was put in jail because he was helping people who were fully able to consent with their own voice along with their spouses to die. That man sits in a jail cell. 

The courts are screwed up!! I don't trust the courts as far as I can throw them.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Actually, Dudireno, I get the impression that you're the one who knows this case beyond the headlines, beyond the public record. The one who is able, from the comfort of home, to sift through 15 years worth of evidence and spin to arrive at both a diagnosis of Mrs. Schiavo and a verdict on her husband. 

So, why not you tell us (with some credible references, please) how money plays into the whole thing. Educate us with something other than rumours, hearsay, and flimsy conspiracy theories. Treat us to just one link.

Unless you (or someone else) can convince me otherwise, I'm undecided but accepting the rule of law: an exhaustive legal process has led to this point, and as a layman with admittedly thin knowledge of the case, I have to accept the courts' decision.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I have admitted from the begining that this is all hear say. So what good will some link do. There is no will of her intentions. You are suggesting to let her die. But to let her die would be to starve her. Her parents are totally willing to take financial liability (so I hear). I don't know what to believe. All I can say for sure is the husband wants her dead the parents don't. It makes logical sense to conclude he stands to profit and the parents are probably over protective. I error on the side of life. What are you suggesting? Your suggestion is to listen to the courts (because its the law) don't feed her and make sure nobody feeds her. I think that stinks of foul play. Take it or leave it.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

SINC said:


> The title of your first post is the title of the thread is it not?
> 
> Try changing that title and see if it works.


did that yesterday, doesn't work. i think it can't be done. the title of the first post did change.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... It is the government that doesn't allow drugs on the market that could prevent death and pain. ..."

Because, when they didn't properly vet the research of Pharmaceutical Companies and accepted their research and trials as submitted, horrible things happened..

I've seen the "benefits" of this "wonder drug" first hand. You wouldn't like it.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

So whats your suggestion then? There are plenty of stories of people who die waiting for drugs to be approved. Do you have a suggestion of a way to make it so nobody dies waiting and nobody experiences the negative effects of drugs? There are risks with taking any drug period. I personally avoid all drugs. Some people in my life though take a pharmacy of drugs. Its a personal choice as to whether you want to take the risk or not. Its a risk to get on a plain, drive a car, or swim in the river but I don't need the governement telling I am being unsafe. I just personally believe that we have turned people into a blame society by all this protection. Nobody takes responsibilty because we are raised in a society where we think the government is there to protect us. We go to Wal mart and don't think twice about grabbing something off the shelf because we know the government wouldn't let them sell me something that is harmful. Its bogus, irresponsible, and destructive. 

Besides you are showing me a link of a private charitable organzation that is trying to get information out. That is exactly my solution. Exactly what is your point? Is it to show that we need the government to keep this from happening again. Or is in support of my ideas to show that these services can be provided by the free market? I don't know how many times on this forum people show me a link to site that proves my point.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... So whats your suggestion then? ..."

My suggestion is there's a reason why drugs need to wait for approval, and that Government is to a certain degree liable for what is sold for medicinal use, and the courts have imposed that obligation whether they want it or not. So, they do so to protect both themselves and us.

" ... There are plenty of stories of people who die waiting for drugs to be approved. ..."

Last time I checked, life is a fatal condition. I'm dying as I write this although I feel fine and expect it will take a couple of decades to kill me off for good. We're all dying, we're all going to die, including the healthiest of us.

No-one has a "right" to drugs; they aren't my property, they belong to Pharmaceutical Companies. Perhaps you should take it up with them; they are free to conduct trials with any unapproved drug that didn't kill any monkeys yet, and they are also free to pay for it or not, as they see fit.

Now, if you want an insurance company to pay for it, you have a problem. I assume that is the crux of the problem for most people; they can't pay for it and want someone else to do so. Insurers do have a right to decide how their money is spent, just like you and I do, and they normally aren't willingly pay for snake oil in my experience.

Got your own cash? Have at 'er. Assuming the needed drug is being made somewhere, you can get it if you really want. If you can't find a doctor willing to administer it, move to Mexico or somewhere else where regulations are just a annoyance other people have to deal with. The doctors in some places aren't nearly as afraid of being turfed out, because it basically doesn't happen there no matter how many people they kill with their "treatments". Maybe they'll save you and even up the score a bit.

I certainly don't have any means whereby you could be sure of reasonably safe drugs while having access to whatever might be brewed up in labs somewhere; they're not compatible scenarios. Pick one or the other, and there's some place on this planet where you can get it. That's not too bad of a deal, considering. In any case, it's the best you can expect.

For someone who "wants it all" I suggest they call Mom and ask her if they can have it. She should have told them the answer a long time ago, but it's never too late I suppose.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The problem with reaction-based drug regulation is that the harm is done. Patients on clinical trials are informed of the risks (informed consent must be given) and are thus willing to act as guinea pigs. However, this is part of a highly regulated process that aims to protect people from calamitous and unpredicted side-effects. It is flawed as Vioxx showed. Patients do have recourse - through litigation but there is clearly a need to prevent these adverse reactions happening. I really do not think its a good idea to depend on fixing problems once they occur. That thalidomide site is an after-the-fact response and the risk of another thalidomide making it to the market is one of the reasons for agencies such as the FDA.

FWIW, Thalidomide has had a renaissance for treatment of multiple myeloma. Obviously, it is never prescribed if there is a chance of pregnancy and it is off-patent.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iMatt, a far more appropriate title for this topic.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Agreed, but where are the mods?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

gordguide has it in spades. We are all dead anyway. Just a matter of time as to when we expire.


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

Been watching various T.V. news programs on the subject , ( i answered the question on would I or wouldn’t I earlier ) , what is bothering me I the complete lack of morals or scruples of the parent’s supporters . No lie is to low , No accusation is to outrageous for them . The poor husband , has been accused of greed , abusing her , of trying to murder her . He seems to be the only good christian in this whole debacle . My heart goes out to him and him alone . a pox on the rest of them .


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

For anyone who doesn't read it, ArsTechnica.com has posted a very good, readable overview of the whole situation (which is way outside their normal area of news/discussion)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050325-4737.html



> In the proud tradition of Ars, we'd like to encourage some intelligent discussion on this matter by trying to do what so many in the media have failed to do, which is actually talk about the case, rather than the circus surrounding it. Now, this case clearly raises several important issues regarding the separation of powers and the relationship between not only the federal and state governments, but also the judiciary. Such are the symptoms of a complex conflict involving technological advances, the nature of scientific knowledge, and the very definition of life.


Read the whole thing


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A civil discussion among friends needs no moderators.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> A civil discussion among friends needs no moderators.


Agreed Dr. G., I merely meant the mods were asked to change the title since the thread originator does not know how.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I understand now. Merci, mon ami.


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

Thanks PosterBoy , for the link , very straight forward, fair , answers all questions you could have about the case . It drive's the point home even more for me how much the ranting-right has abused the court system , her husband , and this woman .


----------



## AWK (Mar 25, 2005)

> would you let her die?


 In a minute... if only to be rid of the insane amount of news coverage the "event" is receiving... and get back to some REAL problems that actually impact most of us!

The most unnerving thing is, no matter whether she lives or dies, the incessant rumbling will continue until the next "American tragedy". Diversion is the agenda du jour.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

People Die all the time, It is like One of the best things we do, ya Know!  I mean this woman's mother is Cryin "Oh please don't lit my little girl die..". She is not a child, she is a grown womon with no cognative function, tha's a fact. No disrespect to the mother, but it is time to stop being selfish and let go. Humans were never ment to function in that state. 

What about the other mothers with perfectly healthy sons and daughters being shipped away to an impending death in Iraq!? Well, ya know ya signed a contract... I don't understand this "Dyng for your Country" BS, I would much rather live to the best of my abilities to be seen as an example of this country's fine Ideals and morals....pfft Whatever that is!!


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

i think her suffering needs to end. she's been like this for like 8 years i think? something like that. they are just making her suffering worse, they need to let her go. if she was actually showing signs of improvement, she should definatly be kept alive, but she hasn't.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

i just wish this whole thing hadn't been turned into the circus that it is. the one right this poor woman does have is a right to privacy and that has been violated by just about everyone involved.

now, i'd like to ask a question:

terri schiavo
laci peterson
michael jackson
robert blake

q: what do they all have in common?


btw, take a look at cnn's web site. right now, there is a photo posted of terri schiavo taken before she suffered brain damage. it's amazing to see how different she looks. it's like it's not even the same person.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

I could feel at the time
There was no way of knowing
Fallen leaves in the night
Who can say where they're blowing

As free as the wind
And hopefully learning
Why the sea on the tide
Has no way of turning

More than this
You know there is nothing
More than this
Tell me one thing
More than this
You know there is nothing

It was fun for a while
There was no way of knowing
Like a dream in the night
Who can say where we're going

No care in the world
Maybe I'm learning
Why the sea on the tide
Has no way of turning

More than this
You know there is nothing
More than this
Tell me one thing
More than this
You know there is nothing


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Sorry Gaston, I Don't get it, Here's one that Comes to Mind for this topic thread Rock on!

Metallica - One

I can't remember anything
Can't tell if this is true or dream
Deep down inside I feel to scream
This terrible silence stops me

Now that the war is through with me
I'm waking up I can not see
That there is not much left of me
Nothing is real but pain now

Hold my breath as I wish for death
Oh please god,wake me

Back in the womb its much too real
In pumps life that I must feel
But can't look forward to reveal
Look to the time when i'll live

Fed through the tube that sticks in me
Just like a wartime novelty
Tied to machines that make me be
Cut this life off from me

Hold my breath as I wish for death
Oh please god,wake me

Now the world is gone i'm just one
Oh god, help me hold my breath as I wish for death
Oh please god help me

Darkness imprisoning me
All that I see
Absolute horror
I cannot live
I cannot die
Trapped in myself
Body my holding cell

Landmine has taken my sight
Taken my speech
Taken my hearing
Taken my arms
Taken my legs
Taken my soul
Left me with life in hell


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> No its an anti-capitalist rant.
> ...
> How about letting the citizens make informed decisions on their own as to whether they want to risk their lives on drugs. There would be far more drugs to choose from and reduced costs if their were not so many road blocks.
> ...
> It seems to me you think the government is here to protect everybody from everything.


Do you really believe that the average North American family has the ability to find out for themselves if "x" experimental drug is in fact safe for them to consume? Where does the family find this information from an unbiased source, if the only entity that knows anything about "x" drug is the company that produces it? And when that company's number one priority is to make a profit?

It comes down to a fundamental issue of trust. Personally I trust Health Canada to evaluate drug "x" on my behalf and tell me the truth about the risks. I do not trust the company that's shilling said drug to be impartial.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

> there is a photo posted of terri schiavo taken before she suffered brain damage. it's amazing to see how different she looks. it's like it's not even the same person.


That's because, sadly, she no longer is the same person. If you read about what a persistent vegetative state is and how [ur=http://arstechnica.com/images/news/schiavo.jpg]badly atrophied her brain is[/url] compared to normal, undamaged brain a you'll see it's hard to say she's a person at all anymore.

The easiest way to think about it is this: Terry Schiavo died a few years ago. Her body is being kept alive by machines.

It's sad, but it's true.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"Do you really believe that the average North American family has the ability to find out for themselves if "x" experimental drug is in fact safe for them to consume?"

absolutly!! Do you really think people are so stupid they can't?

"Where does the family find this information from an unbiased source, if the only entity that knows anything about "x" drug is the company that produces it?"

one source would be a highly trained specialist called a Doctor.
Internet
Word of mouth
Newspaper
Magazine
TV

There is plenty of independent sources that do studies on drugs. There would be even more if they didn't have to compete with the FDA. The FDA stiffles much chance for independent people from making much profit. The AMA which is highly integrated with the government also is a big source of publications and trust and it stiffles competition as well. They are also in control of what they publish and have a high incentive to protect themselves. One example being our current coding system in helthcare. Almost all the world uses ICD-10 and the US doesn't because the AMA has a vested interest in CPT coding. They use the government to protect their turf and not allow ICD-10 in the US.

"And when that company's number one priority is to make a profit?"

What should there motive be to go bankrupt? Basic understanding of Human interaction tells you if you make a profit honestly you are providing something other humans want. In otherwords if you are making a profit you are serving your fellow man. This obviously excludes deceit, stealing, enslaving, etc. 

"It comes down to a fundamental issue of trust. Personally I trust Health Canada to evaluate drug "x" on my behalf and tell me the truth about the risks. I do not trust the company that's shilling said drug to be impartial."

I wouldn't trust the drug company either. I would want lots of information from independent sources before I took the drug. The truth is we would find out alot more about drugs sooner if it was the way I suggested and there would be more helpful drugs on the market. In a nutshell we would be far more advanced in the world of drugs. Drugs is one of the leading ways to reduce the cost of healthcare. But advanced cutting edge healthcare is not really what Canada is known for.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

> absolutly!! Do you really think people are so stupid they can't?


In general yes, but then again, my therapist says I have serious issues with trust and relating to other people. 

Given good information resources and the time to logically piece through all the material, than yes, many people can come to a good decision about drug usage. However, given the emotional and time-critical nature of a medical crisis, I think it would be extremely difficult to come to a logical decision. 

I also question the ability for many people to piece through information for unbiased information, but then again, as a marketing professional, I'm continually amazed as what people will believe without proof or fact. But this might be an area where we will have to simply agree to disagree.



> Basic understanding of Human interaction tells you if you make a profit honestly you are providing something other humans want. In otherwords if you are making a profit you are serving your fellow man.


The difficulty with drugs is that in this case, you aren't providing what people want; they are providing something that in many cases, people may need desperately. If they were truly serving their fellow man, drug companies would provide medications for free--but that wouldn't be fair to the drug companies who spend millions of dollars. A balance does need to be struck between affordably providing medications to people who need them, and funding the drug research and testing. This is not a situation where there are easy answers. 

That said, I do believe that drugs need safeguards before being introduced to the general public. Drug company testing can only test for so much--certain non-laboratory conditions or long-term results will simply not be available. Yes, introducing safeguards introduces bureaucracy that hurts people waiting for these drugs, but at the same time, rushing these drugs into general availability can cause larger problems. 

One of the reasons the Thalidomide problem did not hit the States as badly as Australia, Canada, Europe and Japan is that one doctor in the FDA was particularly concerned about a particular side-effect and wanted more tests performed. Thus the drug was never released into general availability in the US, whereas other countries had tens of thousands of affected victims. (Thalidomide was a sedative deemed safe to use for pregnant women, and was found to be effective for treating morning sickness symptoms.) In this case, the lack of availability in the States actually saved lived.

The system is not perfect by any means. I'm sure for every drug-released-too-soon horror story there are numerous horrors stories of people waiting for treatments. My point is simply that safeguards and review systems--like the FDA and Health Canada--are needed. I'm positive that they could be better, but they are still necessary.

Moreover, the general public is not always in a position to evaluate the safety of particular drugs because the information is simply not always there. No one knew Thalidomide would penetrate the foetal wall. One doctor in the FDA had some concerns about a particular side effect which delayed availability. Would the average person have these concerns? Hard to say.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> In otherwords if you are making a profit you are serving your fellow man. This obviously excludes deceit, stealing, enslaving, etc.


Hmm. Halliburton. Enron. Pacific Gas and Electric. Microsoft.

All profitable companies, but are/were they pinnacles of virtue?



Dudireno said:


> I wouldn't trust the drug company either. I would want lots of information from independent sources before I took the drug.


Exactly. Aside from government agencies, or research by third parties funded by tax dollars, who other than the drug company has the resources to properly evaluate new drugs in scientifically sound clinical studies? Newspapers, TV, the Internet, et cetera, are all great delivery mechanisms for the results of clinical testing, but these are not going to be the primary sources of such information. 



Dudireno said:


> Drugs is one of the leading ways to reduce the cost of healthcare.


Funny, I've always been taught that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Especially in the United States -- where Congress has passed laws banning Medicare administrators from negotiating bulk drug purchases from pharmaceutical companies. A situation that has led to Americans coming to Canada to find affordable prescription drugs.



Dudireno said:


> But advanced cutting edge healthcare is not really what Canada is known for.


Not going to bite on that one, Dudireno. We'll have to agree to disagree on pretty much everything, I guess.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> if you are making a profit you are serving your fellow man.


Your phrase smacks a bit of altruism - I think "enlightened self interest" is a more appropriate term.
Something Marx over looked and Rand celebrated.
You are talking transactions and contract not ethics or "do goodism".

The Econmist has had some good articles lately on the pitfalls of mixing elements of common weal and the goals of biz.
Gov and NGOs have oversight ( or should have) on the former when abused by the latter.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

ct77 said:


> Hmm. Halliburton. Enron. Pacific Gas and Electric. Microsoft.


All examples of deceit. Well I don't know what your problem with Microsoft is. 






 ct77 said:


> Exactly. Aside from government agencies, or research by third parties funded by tax dollars, who other than the drug company has the resources to properly evaluate new drugs in scientifically sound clinical studies? Newspapers, TV, the Internet, et cetera, are all great delivery mechanisms for the results of clinical testing, but these are not going to be the primary sources of such information.


Exactly the government has a monopoly.



ct77 said:


> Funny, I've always been taught that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Especially in the United States -- where Congress has passed laws banning Medicare administrators from negotiating bulk drug purchases from pharmaceutical companies. A situation that has led to Americans coming to Canada to find affordable prescription drugs.


Another example of someone arguing for government intervention by spotting the problems with government intervention. This is a real pattern on this site.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Sonal said:


> The difficulty with drugs is that in this case, you aren't providing what people want; they are providing something that in many cases, people may need desperately. If they were truly serving their fellow man, drug companies would provide medications for free--but that wouldn't be fair to the drug companies who spend millions of dollars.


Why does something have to be for free in order to serve your fellow man? Why is that what you identify as the determining factor for serving your fellow man. Until you realize that making a profit is not an evil thing you will never understand what I am saying. 

We can go further. Why does a drug company need to spend millions of dollars? 

My local grocery store provides me with something I need. Are they serving their fellow man?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Originally Posted by Dudireno
> 
> But advanced cutting edge healthcare is not really what Canada is known for.


Oh bull**** - you know so little it's excruciating.

Insulin was discovered here amongst many other. Look up the list of Sick Kids accomplishments alone. Before you debate at least know some facts.
Here's just one hospital doing beakthrough work since 1875
http://www.sickkids.ca/aboutHSC/section.asp?s=Sick+Kids+History&sID=211

http://www.sickkids.ca/abouthsc/section.asp?s=History+and+Milestones&sID=1188

PREVENTION saves healthcare costs -programs like early childcare saves money - programs your gov cuts funding from all the time as it lines the pockets of their "vote buyers" quite effectively.
Your fellow citizens take bus trips to Canada to buy the same drugs they require to live and flout your nation's pathetic attempts to maintain high prices and profits for the drug companies.

You've got an increasingly oligarchic and have/have not society and it stinks to high heaven. The gap has risen steadily in the US since 1960 and it's going to blow up in your face one of these days as it ever has in history.
Stop being the arms merchant and meddler extraordinaire to the world and start living up to your ideals about equality and opportunity, peace and freedom and responsibility.

Right now in the eyes of the world......it's all bull**** ..... self serving to a few powerful US families and corporations.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dudireno said:


> But advanced cutting edge healthcare is not really what Canada is known for.


So what do you call the angioplasty and stent implants that saved my life after spending 1 hour and 47 minutes awake on the table while doctors worked inside my heart? I even watched them do it all on the monitors they used to guide them. If that is not cutting edge, what is?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

SINC said:


> So what do you call the angioplasty and stent implants that saved my life after spending 1 hour and 47 minutes awake on the table while doctors worked inside my heart? I even watched them do it all on the monitors they used to guide them. If that is not cutting edge, what is?



I call it a procedure that is over 20 years old and Thousands even millions performed every year in the world. 

It is not some hidden secret that canada lacks availability to cutting edge technologies and that your wait times to accessing these technologies is increase every year. Your own government admits it. But its fair right?

Oh yea and how about the deficiency in human resources in performing these technologies is lacking as well. All your physicians are crossing the border to the US.

Don't believe me see if I care.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And here is yet another "cutting edge" story from today's TO Star:

Wilfred Bigelow, 91, giant of medicine
Revolutionized heart surgery 
Co-inventor of the pacemaker

PHILIP MASCOLL
STAFF REPORTER

Dr. Wilfred Bigelow was the father of open-heart surgery in Canada and one of the great pioneers in the world, say former students and admirers.

The surgeon who invented the technique of hypothermia for open-heart surgery, and performed the world's first such procedure on a dog at the Banting Institute in 1949, was also a co-inventor of the pacemaker.

He died on Sunday evening at age 91 in his Toronto home.

"Generations of doctors across Canada and the United States and around the world were trained by him," said former student and friend Dr. Bernard Goldman, who worked with Bigelow on the staff of Toronto General Hospital for 20 years after training under him.

"He was a real mentor to me ... a tremendous supporter," said Goldman, who is now professor emeritus at the University of Toronto and former chief of heart surgery and surgery at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

Goldman said one of the legends that grew up around Bigelow was how he and Dr. Edouard Gagnon at the Montreal Heart Institute shared a trans-ventricular dilator.

The instrument would be mailed back and forth as one or the other needed it, Goldman said.

Bigelow's daughter, Pixie Bigelow Currie, said her father epitomized "passion, perseverance, energy and caring.

"He was a man who loved his family, close friends, horses and dogs. He loved children ... he was delighted with his great-grandchildren," said Bigelow Currie, an actress and filmmaker.

His other passion was the outdoors. He loved the environment, hunting, fishing and golf.

Bigelow and his wife, Ruth, also had three sons, John, Dan and Bill. Ruth died before her husband. 

Dr. David Naylor, dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto, called Bigelow "a legendary figure in Canadian medicine and global cardiac surgery. 

"Dr. Bigelow was not only a pioneer in the use of hypothermia — deliberately cooling the heart — to make open heart surgery safer, he was also a leader in the development of the cardiac pacemaker, an innovation that has saved countless thousands of lives."

"A superb clinician, researcher and teacher, Bill Bigelow had a truly remarkable career, and his passing marks the end of an era."

Born in Brandon, Man., Bigelow studied medicine at the University of Toronto, graduating in 1938, then did his surgical residency at Toronto General Hospital.

He served as a captain in the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps during World War II, first with the Field Transfusion Unit, and as a battle surgeon with the Sixth Canadian Clearing Station in Belgium, a front-line facility.

In 1946, Bigelow trained in cardiovascular surgery at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Md., before joining the staff at Toronto General. 

At the U.S. hospital, he was present at the birth of cardiac surgery in 1947, when the team at Johns Hopkins became the first in the world to make heart operations a daily procedure rather than an occasional special event.

A passage in the online edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal of June 1997, when Bigelow was inducted into the CMA's Hall of Fame, describes him as one of Canada's most distinguished surgeons and the 1992 recipient of the CMA's F.N.G. Starr Award. 

Among his many honours, Bigelow won a prestigious Gairdner Foundation award in 1959 for his work on hypothermia.

In 1981 he was inducted into the Order of Canada.

The funeral and interment will be private.

A memorial service will be held at Rosedale United Church at 2 p.m. on April 23.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

He sounds like a great guy. 

The US has far more facilities to perform these procedures per capita. Less wait times as well.  

No Bull****


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and 45 million people without health care - some record.............


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Thats such bull.

You are just spewing propoganda. You know that 45 million people in this country don't go without healthcare.

Thats either a joke, you are dishonest with yourself, trying to mislead people, or you are just plain stupid. I am assuming it was a joke.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> It is not some hidden secret that canada lacks availability to cutting edge technologies and that your wait times to accessing these technologies is increase every year. Your own government admits it. But its fair right?


At least in Canada everyone has access to these technologies unlike in the US where if you don't have insurance you're up the creek.



Dudireno said:


> Oh yea and how about the deficiency in human resources in performing these technologies is lacking as well. All your physicians are crossing the border to the US.
> 
> Don't believe me see if I care.


I don't see what physicians from Canada would be doing heading to the US. People from the US go to Canada for drugs and go to Mexico, India, Cuba, and other countries for operations at lower costs. Basically nowadays, The US buys everything from other countries and has become one big consumer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dudireno said:


> Thats such bull.
> 
> You are just spewing propoganda. You know that 45 million people in this country don't go without healthcare.
> 
> Thats either a joke, you are dishonest with yourself, trying to mislead people, or you are just plain stupid. I am assuming it was a joke.


It seems MacDoc was wrong with his 45 million figure. According to the Families USA web site the real figure is 81 million.


ONE OUT OF THREE NON-ELDERLY AMERICANS WERE UNINSURED DURING 2002-2003


82 Million People, Including Many in the Middle Class,
Were Uninsured At Some Point Over The Past Two Years;
Most Were Uninsured For At Least Nine Months


Washington, D.C. - Approximately 81.8 million Americans -- one out of three people under 65 years of age -- were uninsured at some point of time during 2002-2003, according to a report released today by the health consumer organization Families USA.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> Why does something have to be for free in order to serve your fellow man? Why is that what you identify as the determining factor for serving your fellow man. Until you realize that making a profit is not an evil thing you will never understand what I am saying.


I don't think profit is necessarily evil. (I'm self-employed--profit is something I like quite a bit.) But I would say that you are serving your fellow man a lot more if you do not deny people something they need based on their ability to pay for it. The moment you put a price on something, you are setting a limit on who can and cannot have that thing--if you raise the price to make a profit, you are setting that limit even higher. This isn't necessarily evil in itself, but this does create a potential for conflict between serving profit and serving people. 

As you've pointed out, people die or suffer needlessly because they are waiting for drugs to become available. People also die or suffer needlessly because they cannot afford to pay for drugs or medical treatment. Profit isn't necessarily a bad thing, but profit alone doesn't do anything to help that situation.



> We can go further. Why does a drug company need to spend millions of dollars?


Because the high-tech research equipment to produce cutting-edge drugs costs money. Because paying salaries for researchers, administrative staff, etc., costs money. Because rigourous testing to ensure that the drugs are safe and effective takes time and costs money. Because the mass scale manufacturing costs money. And in the States, the marketing costs money, which is (as I understand it) a major factor in why drugs are cheaper in Canada--the pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to take out TV ads up here.

Making a safe and effective drug takes a lot of money. And yes, the companies that invest that money deserve to recoup their costs through the sale of the drug. But even if the cost of the drug was so low that it only covered recouping expenses and there was no profit margin, there would still people who need that drug who would not be able to afford it--their needs are not being served.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

SINC said:


> It seems MacDoc was wrong with his 45 million figure. According to the Families USA web site the real figure is 81 million.
> 
> 
> ONE OUT OF THREE NON-ELDERLY AMERICANS WERE UNINSURED DURING 2002-2003
> ...



He didn't say insurance he said "healthcare"

Besides there are tons of reasons. First there is free state coverage that people just don't sign up for because they never use it. If they went to the Hospital they would sign them up. Thats like me saying anybody in canada that didn't use healthcare isn't insured. 

Second if you change jobs your healthcare coverage is cancelled and changed to your new employer and for that month of change over they are considered without coverage.

And anybody who can't pay for healthcare receives healthcare and the costs are shifted to those who pay. Its a system you should love. The poor get dirt cheap healthcare and those who can pay pay more. Ask any person invovlved in hospital billing or administration in the US. Oh wait you could ask me. The hospital I work for writes off millions of dollars in bad debt that they never intend on collecting and they raise their fees. So who pays the raised fees? Those who have money. I see it everyday.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Sonal said:


> I don't think profit is necessarily evil. (I'm self-employed--profit is something I like quite a bit.) But I would say that you are serving your fellow man a lot more if you do not deny people something they need based on their ability to pay for it. The moment you put a price on something, you are setting a limit on who can and cannot have that thing--if you raise the price to make a profit, you are setting that limit even higher. This isn't necessarily evil in itself, but this does create a potential for conflict between serving profit and serving people.
> 
> As you've pointed out, people die or suffer needlessly because they are waiting for drugs to become available. People also die or suffer needlessly because they cannot afford to pay for drugs or medical treatment. Profit isn't necessarily a bad thing, but profit alone doesn't do anything to help that situation.
> 
> ...


So we should also crack down on equipment builders. They are charging too much which is directly causing high price of drugs. Those people should relize that to gain a profit from drug companies is bad because these are things people need not want.

They have alot of paper work to do. The paper industry should take into consideration that they are selling to a drug company and they are producing products that people need not want and a profit just wouldn't be ethical.

Oh the marketing should be low cost as well so all TV comercials should be price regulated and pay for with tax dollars because some people can't afford to pay for their drugs and that wouldn't be ethical.

Do you understand my point?

lets just trample all freedom to get cheap drugs. We either take away people's right to interact freely or we steal from the citizens to pay for whatever the politicians feel like. All the while we are stiffling the production and in the long run driving up the cost.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

There is a way for the free market to provide for those who are poor. It is called charity. It is an ethical voluntary system of giving. Not a system of force. Taking from one person and giving to another without consent is stealing. 

If you want to tax people at least do it thru a consumption tax and not an income tax. An income tax directly taxes those who produce and stiffles production. A consumption tax only taxes those that are consuming. Therefore if people in society are not producing and essentially just consuming they are taxed. The way we have the system setup we tax those that are most productive while drug dealers, thieves, and those lazy asses that are honestly a burden pay nothing to society. 

Everybody has a responsiblity for taking care of the the underprivileged. But it should be voluntary. That is ethical. Someone does not have a right to another mans labor.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I get your point, though I'm not sure that you get mine.

This is the summary of what I have said:
1) Safeguards--such as the FDA or Health Canada--are necessary in my view, even though they cause tragic delays for many people.
2) Doing things for profit, even if they are good and helpful things, can cause a conflict of interest that can lead to bad things, even though profit itself is not inherently bad. Profit, in my view, is not inherently good, either.

This was more implicit:
1) This is a very complex problem for which I do not have a good solution--in fact, I don't even think there is a good solution, since when dealing with life and deal issues, everything introduces the possibility of more suffering in different ways. 
2) Though I do not have a specific solution, I believe the current situation--though admittedly flawed--is preferable to me over the solution you suggest. 
3) In my opinion, freedom to stay alive, which usually requires people to have access to things like food, shelter and medical treatment, is more important than freedom to make money. 

I'm sure you disagree with a lot of this, but then again, you're free to do so.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"2) Doing things for profit, even if they are good and helpful things, can cause a conflict of interest that can lead to bad things, even though profit itself is not inherently bad. Profit, in my view, is not inherently good, either."

Just explain this one to me more. Doing good and helpful things leads to bad things. That I am not following.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

There's a great expression: under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.



Dudireno said:


> Everybody has a responsiblity for taking care of the the underprivileged. But it should be voluntary. That is ethical. Someone does not have a right to another mans labor.


You are right in that it should be voluntary. I do not believe that this would actually happen in practice. But I am admittedly a pessimist.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> "2) Doing things for profit, even if they are good and helpful things, can cause a conflict of interest that can lead to bad things, even though profit itself is not inherently bad. Profit, in my view, is not inherently good, either."
> 
> Just explain this one to me more. Doing good and helpful things leads to bad things. That I am not following.


The conflict of interest can lead to bad things.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

What conflict? The conflict that someone who can't afford the price of a drug doesn't have the right to force the drug maker to give it to the consumer at the consumers price.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> What conflict? The conflict that someone who can't afford the price of a drug doesn't have the right to force the drug maker to give it to the consumer at the consumers price.


Essentially, yes, though that's not quite how I would put it--though it amounts to the same thing. 

But in many cases, if that consumer cannot pay the drug maker's price, they will die. I see this as a bad thing. 

True, many other people are saved by the drug maker which is a good thing, but in my mind it does not mitigate the fact that people do suffer because they cannot afford to pay the drug company's price. And yes, the drug company has a right to charge for its investment in research, etc. to produce the drug.

So yes, doing good things can cause bad things to happen.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Drug pricing has nothing to do with the cost of production, R&D or whatever. It's based on what the market will bear. This works well when there are competitive drugs that are similarly effective. However it does not work well with single sourced drugs that are priced to maximize profits in the short term. One example is Avastin. This "wonder drug" can extend a lung cancer patients life by a whole two months. Release of this trial data actually pushed up Genentechs stock by 25%. The cost of this drug is US$10,000 for a course of treatment. Erbitux costs US$20,000 for a course. Neither drug (well, antibody to be accurate) works alone and requires co-treatment with traditional chemotherapeutic agents.

In time, there will be competitors to these drugs and that will bring the price down. In the meantime, patients who are sick now are being gouged (or their insurance companies are being gouged) during the last few months of their lives.

Patent protection helps pharmaceutical companies to recover their costs but it can also lead to exorbitant drug prices in the short term. One of the largest "costs" of a drug is the marketing budget and salesforce. Should not an effective drug sell itself - especially if its the only one on the market? Why spend money on lavish advertising to patients? Why not focus on making the relevant, vetted for veracity, information available and allow patients to choose their drugs through information? Oh - I forgot - that's precisely what we do in Canada....


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> If you want to tax people at least do it thru a consumption tax and not an income tax. An income tax directly taxes those who produce and stiffles production. A consumption tax only taxes those that are consuming. Therefore if people in society are not producing and essentially just consuming they are taxed. The way we have the system setup we tax those that are most productive while drug dealers, thieves, and those lazy asses that are honestly a burden pay nothing to society.
> .


Yeah, only a person from the US, a country that produces nothing except wars, and gets others to produce what it consumes, would propose something so stupid. You consume yourselves into debt and expect everyone else to pay you out.

Man if this is an example of capitalism, I'll stay in this socialist country.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Yeah, only a person from the US, a country that produces nothing except wars, and gets others to produce what it consumes, would propose something so stupid. You consume yourselves into debt and expect everyone else to pay you out.
> 
> Man if this is an example of capitalism, I'll stay in this socialist country.


How is suggesting a sales may be better and more fair than income tax so stupid?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Following up on an earlier post about expensive new drugs, here's a recent AP report on cost/benefits.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> How is suggesting a sales may be better and more fair than income tax so stupid?


Let's see, everyone has basic consumptions that they need - food, shelter, basic clothing. For the poor people and lower class, these basic consumptions take up the majority of thier income . The lower class ends up being taxed just as much as the rich on these basic consumptions, but to the lower class that's 90% of their income, to the higher class that's only 50% of their income. Then the richer just get richer making money off their money through investments, and the poorer get poorer. Sure the rich possibly pay more taxes because the consume more, but it's the poor that really get hit. As Mr. Greenspan said himself, in the end it's better to have a non-pure tax system - one that derives tax from income and sales.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Jwood this is a quote from your article.

""We are spending huge sums of money on treatments that are offering only modest benefits," says Dr. Richard Deyo, "

This is where what I suggests makes alot of sense. Even though it sounds horrible there is a point to where you say the cost just isn't worth the benefit even if we are dealing with life and death. To spend Millions preserving someones life for a month just will not be worth it. Everybody's opinions are different on the subject based on where they live, how they were raised, religion, age, and yes financial stability. By allowing the market to function consumers make the decision as to whether certain treatments are worth the cost. On the other hand we throw millions of dollars at drugs to produce that the market is already telling us the cost ratio is not worth the benefit. We try to preplan with good intentions of preserving life and all the while the market, which is the some action of all consumers, is telling us there is more to gain in the other areas. Its unpredictable and ever changing and tampering with the market only makes it worse and more cost prohibitive. It is basic market function and there is no reason it won't work for drugs, healthcare, organs or anything else in this world. It comes down to not whether the market works or not (This is basic economics that even Marx himself was in owe of and admits has tremendous efficiency) but whether you are willing to give up more efficiency in the name of justice. My point of view is, is it really justice if by not allowing the market to function we actually slow down the progress?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Let's see, everyone has basic consumptions that they need - food, shelter, basic clothing. For the poor people and lower class, these basic consumptions take up the majority of thier income . The lower class ends up being taxed just as much as the rich on these basic consumptions, but to the lower class that's 90% of their income, to the higher class that's only 50% of their income. Then the richer just get richer making money off their money through investments, and the poorer get poorer. Sure the rich possibly pay more taxes because the consume more, but it's the poor that really get hit. As Mr. Greenspan said himself, in the end it's better to have a non-pure tax system - one that derives tax from income and sales.


So lets just tax everybody to the point that everybody makes the same amount of money. Would you agree with that. If you want to level the playing field through taxes don't do it half assed just go for. That would be fair right?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Should not an effective drug sell itself - especially if its the only one on the market?


Apparently not in the US  Buprenorphine WORKS - zero side effects but almost no acceptance due to "interest group" pressures and NIMBY attitudes.



> The Bitter Pill
> Buprenorphine could end heroin addiction, curb disease, and cut crime. But the drug treatment industrial complex is just saying no. A case study in why the best technology doesn't always win.
> [ Coming April 1 ] By Douglas McGray


http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/

The article link willnot be active until the 1st but it's well worth reading and a cautionary tale of stupidity in action.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno,

I think the cost/benefit ratio is often massively distorted. We spend >80% or so of healthcare dollars on the last year of life and this sucks up not only resources but beds, etc. Meanwhile, the chronically ill (but not-life threatening) patients and those with acute infections/trauma, etc. are under-served. This issue is only going to get worse with the demographics. I wish we'd spend more on primary prevention and primary intervention than on heroic efforts to keep people alive for an extra few months. We should invest more in palliative care to increase the quality of life of terminally ill patients.

We have to make some hard decisions but I think there should be a strong bias towards "potential years of future life" rather than eeking out a few more days of misery.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

Terry Schiavo has apparently passed away. This has been a sad couple of weeks and I hope her family is able to find some sort of peace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15423-2005Mar31.html

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...968793972154&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I very much doubt that her family will find peace since they have been at each others throats for years. There will be fights over her burial, over her autopsy, over book rights (which her family has agreed to), etc. The only thing certain is that the media and religious circuses will move on to their next crusade (along with Jesse Jackson). This is a tragedy, but it is a personal one. The only reason it made the mainstream was due to the manipulation of the facts and a seemingly bottomless legal fund. Many people are left to die in this manner. If there is some good to come out of the situation, it may have given people thoughts about writing living wills and to discuss the right to live as well as providing courage for elected officials to pass a law to allow a more humane ending of life than starvation (e.g. through physician-mediated intervention).


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I was very unaware of how often this happens. We really should legalize other forms so it can be quick.


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

Well... she passed away today....

now the family issue is where to bury her...


----------



## Strimkind (Mar 31, 2005)

I dunno how you people feel about this issue, but each time I heard about this on the radio or the TV I figured, who's business is it of anyones, espectially those who were trying to smuggle food in or what have you. This is not my business or yours and all it is is just a bored media trying to gather ratings by getting involved in something that they should not have. One of the reasons I barely watch TV now.

(btw first post  )


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

SINC said:


> change the title since the thread originator does not know how.


Are you sticking it to me?



hey, i know how, i'm just not allowed!! Public Servants only.

you backstabber


----------



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

Well, there's still the issue of the autopsy, that may shed some light on her condition. Of course, I doubt that the results will be 100% conclusive, so there would continue to be people giving alternative explanations and calling into doubt previous legal decisions and expert opinions.

The thing that saddens me the most was that her parents could not be with her when she died. I personally believe that removing her feeding tube was the best option, and that the parents have the right to be with her when she died; however,given the conflict between her husband and her parents, I'm not surprised that they weren't allowed to be there (that and it may have been difficult to tell when she was actually about to die). I know it's a naive thought on my part, but I hoped that in her death there could be some unity and forgiveness - after all, both parties believed they were acting in her best interest. Hopefully, her death will bring some resolution.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

While I wish her peace now, I agree with Jim that I doubt there will be any peaceful resolution to this issue. Sadly, she shall be made into a cause.

I made a predicition to my wife yesterday that we shall see a religious-right candidate in the next election. It shall be a third party, outside of the traditional Republican party, unless the Republicans put up a candidate that has even more IOUs than Bush to this group. It would make for a most interesting election, in that outside of Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, there has not been a serious third party in my lifetime that influenced the outcome of an election. We shall see.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

My codolences go out to both the husband (Michael) and the parents. It has been a tough time for all. 

Their wishes were at odds, but the courts had over and over again ruled that the wishes of Terri were to not be kept alive by a tube. Michael maintained that he was dedicated to carrying out her wishes.

Everything that has gone on is a circus. CNN is like a pack of wolves waiting for a feeding and the politicians have used the podium to strengthen the support of the religious right that helped put them in power.
I keep on hearing about the sanctity of life and the need to protect the helpless. Yet, this comes from a society that murders the unborn out of convenience and refuses to fund universal health care to those who can't afford to see a doctor. How many in the USA die each year from illness that they can't afford to treat (doctor, hospital or drugs)? Thank you concerned politicians!

I'm also concerned with the hateful rhetoric coming from the mouths of the clergy. The priest spokesman for the family (and supporting religious group) and the Vatican have uttered statements that I find embarrasing as a Catholic. Hardly the words of understanding and reconciliation that might have expected from spiritual leaders.

May Terri now have some peace. It's good that she couldn't comprehend the hysteria and conflict created around her unfortunate situation. The truly sad ending is that she had to waste away slowly instead of with a quick solution. In that there is little dignity. The thinking that maintains that you must keep a being alive at all costs and without exception is also the same thinking that prevents a person from having a quick, painless ending when imminent death is inevitable. One day we'll treat our loved ones as well as we treat our beloved pets.

Venting complete!


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

CNN far from wants to strengthen the religious right.

The religious right are not the ones who want to murder the unborn.

preventable illness? You must be talking about all the smokers, drug addicts, obese, and inactive. Because those that die from lack of funding would be small. Not to mention highly incalculable. The US does have laws specifically stating that people can't be refused treatment due to lack of insurance. Believe me hospitals lose alot of money because of it and stick it to those who pay.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

iMatt - Sorry this took so long. The threads have been merged under the new title.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Peter Scharman said:


> One day we'll treat our loved ones as well as we treat our beloved pets.
> 
> Venting complete!


Well said Peter, and oh so true. 

May we all one day find the compassion to do what needs to be done, and be damned the courts.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I just hope that we could show as much compassion for children who live below the poverty line, go to bed hungry and/or don't have a place to sleep at night.

May she rest in peace. She's earned it.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Amen, MacSpectrum. I feel for the family of Schiavo, husband included, and am disgusted that this has become a national spectacle.

As for the wingnuts standing out on the street, praying for the judges involved to be sent straight ot hell, I class them in the same category as anti-choice fanatics (you know, those who go around killing the doctors who perform abortions, because they are "murdering" unborn children). If and/or when the day comes that each of these hypocrites is standing in front of the pearly gates, awaiting their escort into la-la land, I hope they're ready to answer the question; How many orphaned children did you adopt? How many homeless people did you help to survive? What did you do in your lifetime to make the world - the entire world - a better place for every human being, not just you, your family and your friends? 

Terri Shiavo is at peace now. There are millions of people worldwide who won't be with us tomorrow, and if a fraction of the effort that has been expended by the Shiavo activists were directed toward their needs, many more lives would be saved. But those condemned to live away from the TV cameras cannot expect a telethon, a benefit concert, and sure as hell no U.S.-Congress emergency session and rushed legislation to save their lives.

Hypocrisy. Sucks.


M


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

CubaMark said:


> Hypocrisy. Sucks.


Ain't that the truth?!


----------



## Ena (Feb 7, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> My wife is a physician and she told me last night that this whole legal tussle going on in the U.S. *would not happen in Canada* with our system. The custodial power lies with the spouse then follows through the next of kin. The decisions are irrevocable by any outside legal forces except for criminal suspicion of financial/personal gain.
> 
> This last ditch meddling by the evangelical right-wing smacks of political system in the U.S. that deeply influenced by powerful lobby groups.


To add to the Canadian perspective.
I work in an Extended Care Hospital. When people are admitted one of the required forms is a 'Degree of Intervention.' It is a legal form stating the patient's wishes as to how much medical intervention is to be given to the patient when and if they become ill or dying.


----------



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> Hypocrisy. Sucks.


Amen, brother.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

CubaMark said:


> As for the wing-nuts standing out on the street, praying for the judges involved to be sent straight to hell, I class them in the same category as anti-choice fanatics (you know, those who go around killing the doctors who perform abortions, because they are "murdering" unborn children). If and/or when the day comes that each of these hypocrites is standing in front of the pearly gates, awaiting their escort into la-la land, I hope they're ready to answer the question; How many orphaned children did you adopt? How many homeless people did you help to survive? What did you do in your lifetime to make the world - the entire world - a better place for every human being, not just you, your family and your friends? M


Yeah what kind of heartless bastard could possibly have a moral conflict with tearing a living unborn child to pieces with a knife and high pressure vacuum? Or driving a pair of scissors into a partially delivered child's scull and sucking out their brains? After all its just another "choice" in life like wearing boxers or briefs. You'd have to be a wing-nut for sure.
If they really wanted to do something to help humanity they could get on the ice flows and stop those heartless Newfoundlanders from hunting those cuddly seals or sponsor some hollywood activists and his 5th wife to cruise out there and do it for them. 
Hypocrisy sure does suck.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah what kind of heartless bastard could possibly have a moral conflict with tearing a living unborn child to pieces with a knife and high pressure vacuum?
> 
> Hypocrisy sure does suck.


Yeah kind of like the Catholic Church's silent consent of the Holocaust, eh?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Yeah kind of like the Catholic Church's silent consent of the Holocaust, eh?


Gee that was 50 years ago, and if it did in fact happen it was wrong. 

Abortion is a holocaust in our times and in our own country taking the lives of about 200,000 Canadians each year and millions worldwide. The church refuses to give their silent consent to this holocaust, how about you?

Also, I didn't realize opposition to abortion was confined to Catholics. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacGuiver: Are you a silent consent holocaust denier? 

~

If you dig deep enough there's hypocrosy everywhere, so put your fingers away before you poke someone's eye out.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Manny,

No the holocaust sure did happen. No denial here.
I just refuse to deny the one thats taking place today. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> No the holocaust sure did happen. No denial here.
> I just refuse to deny the one thats taking place today.


So you are comparing the practice of abortion to the holocaust. I am understanding you right?

So by that logic you must think that women must be Nazi's?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> So you are comparing the practice of abortion to the holocaust. I am understanding you right?
> 
> So by that logic you must think that women must be Nazi's?


Not at all Da_jonesy but nice try.

Just see similarity in the slaughter of millions of innocent Jews that were labeled sub-human to the unrestricted slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children that have been labeled likewise. The motives may be different but the outcome for the innocent is the same.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Not at all Da_jonesy but nice try.
> 
> Just see similarity in the slaughter of millions of innocent Jews that were labeled sub-human to the unrestricted slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children that have been labeled likewise. The motives may be different but the outcome for the innocent is the same.
> 
> ...


yeah well I tried... But unless you are a woman you really don't have a say in the abortion issue do you?


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> yeah well I tried... But unless you are a woman you really don't have a say in the abortion issue do you?


...and thank goodness for that!!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> yeah well I tried... But unless you are a woman you really don't have a say in the abortion issue do you?


Sadly, neither do millions of dead babies. Too bad for them.  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacGuiver, the problem is that whether abortion is legal or not desperate women choose to have them anyway. And when it's illegal, the conditions tend toward atrocious: not only do you wind up with a dead baby, but you often wind up with a dead or severely injured adult or adolescent woman.

So, while we might all deplore abortion, the way to deal with it is not to make it illegal and pretend it doesn't happen or, worse, pretend that women who have them anyway deserve whatever consequences follow. 

Instead of simply making it a crime, wouldn't it be better to work to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place? I don't know of <i>anyone</i> who would disagree with that, and yet we have the Catholic church and evangelical Christians insisting that abstinence is the <b>only</b> way to accomplish the one goal we can all agree on. But what does preaching abstinence really accomplish? It leads to the spread of ignorance about sexuality, biology, disease and pregnancy. And that kind of ignorance leads directly to unwanted pregnancies and to the spread of disease.

Unless and until the Catholic church and other moral crusaders can accept the value of teaching young people about sexuality and birth control, then IMO the rest of us will be justified in seeing these people as being tragically unrealistic in their views. By all means, let's put an end to abortion...but let's do it humanely and realistically, by working to eliminate the conditions that drive women to make that choice.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iMatt said:


> Unless and until the Catholic church and other moral crusaders can accept the value of teaching young people about sexuality and birth control, then IMO the rest of us will be justified in seeing these people as being tragically unrealistic in their views. By all means, let's put an end to abortion...but let's do it humanely and realistically, by working to eliminate the conditions that drive women to make that choice.


That is probably the most intelligent thing posted in this thread. Well said iMatt.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

Please allow me to paraphrase iMatt: 
"So, while we might all deplore murder, the way to deal with it is not to make it illegal and pretend it doesn't happen"  
I think the central question here is whether or not the unborn is a human being. If we say yes, then abortion ( in spite of all the good intentions of those who perform them or have them performed ) is actually murder. If not, then we can easily silence the opponents of abortion by pointing out the irrationality of their arguments. But it seems to me that even those who are for abortion (or "choice" or whatever you want to call it) all do so reluctantly and with an understanding that they find it "deplorable". If the unborn is not human, then it seems to me that abortion is not the least bit deplorable, and women who want them for any reason should be allowed to have them. If we put any restriction to the acces to abortion, are we not admitting that it is actually a murder that is taking place? The only logical arguments seem to be "the unborn is a human and therefore abortion is murder" or " the unborn is not human at all, but just a lump of cells and therefore abortion is not regrettable at all and is actually a good thing." (which I, personnally, have never actually heard as an argument).


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

iMatt said:


> MacGuiver, the problem is that whether abortion is legal or not desperate women choose to have them anyway. And when it's illegal, the conditions tend toward atrocious: not only do you wind up with a dead baby, but you often wind up with a dead or severely injured adult or adolescent woman.
> 
> So, while we might all deplore abortion, the way to deal with it is not to make it illegal and pretend it doesn't happen or, worse, pretend that women who have them anyway deserve whatever consequences follow.
> 
> ...


Hi iMatt,

Thanks for a good response but I take issue with some of your points and agree with others. 
I agree we need to eliminate the conditions that force women to have to go through the trauma of an abortion but I don't share your opinion on what the answer is to achieve that.
What we really need to do is reset our moral compass. Unfortunately since the 60's, sex has degraded to just another leisure activity like smoking cigarettes or eating ice cream with no commitment required from either party. If the first line of birth control failed or wasn't used you simply kill the child conceived. The new casual approach to sex has come at a great cost to society. It brought us the global AIDS epidemic, rampant STDs, millions of fatherless and impoverished children, financial burdens on the social and medical system, more troubled kids in our schools from broken marriages where mom or dad was getting a little on the side, more sexual abuse and prostitution plus a staggering death tole of unborn babies. Since 1973, 44 million unborn babies have died in abortion in the US alone. Thats almost 44 times more US citizens than died in the Civil war, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq combined. The Pope had it right when he discribed our culture as "a culture of death". I agree whole heartedly with that assessment. 
How we reset the moral compass is a tough one but I think it begins with the acknowledgment that we have a moral crisis in our culture and our current solutions are only digging the hole deeper.
It may be unrealistic to think we can bail out our sinking boat now but I think its wrong not to try.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

STDs, prostitution, abortions existed long before the sixties (even 60 AD). The Victorian age of supposed proper "restraint" was full of debauchery and hypopcrisy.

What do anti-abortionists think of "Plan B"? Is terminating a pregnancy at 8 cells through the use of a pill murder? Why does the Catholic Church not permit teachings of the use of condoms in AIDS ravaged Africa - even between married couples?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Voodoo shaking and rattling of seeds. Moral compass!!!???.........sanctimonious nonsense based on superstitions and heirarchy. Some people will "believe" anything - especially if it's old and hoary. At least the Blarney stone has some humour attached.

Even most aboriginal communities had enough sense to control their sustainable populations as they knew very well they ALL would die of starvation if they did not.

The anthropologists of the future are going to get a good belly laugh.......if the species gets there. 

Let's go back to the divine right of kings while we're at the retrograde stage. At least they had enough cojones to send the overpopulation out on wars or banish them overseas when the farm plots got a bit tight.

You got one planet, it's in trouble - reading runes from bygone fairy tales is NOT going to fix things. What a waste of time and energy.

If EVERY form of voluntary population control is not undertaken NOW then we'll have a Rwanda for the planet.
Superstitious claptrap......Easter Island Earth here we come - .........


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc,

I see your still quoting from the Gospel of Suzuki? I believe it was the eco prophet $$$ Ehrlich that correctly predicted us on the brink of starvation in 1967? Well I bet he sold lots of books and got lots of cash from speaking engagements and research grants? Oh yeah and they were bang on with the whole acid rain thing. Every lake in Canada is dead and not a Maple sugar bush is left sanding. Oh and damn it getting cold, err wait, its getting warm, err wait, the climate is shifting. Um fat is bad for you err, fat is good for you. BLAH BLAH BLAH. 
You may want to question some of your own Chicken Little dogma. Oh and since your so eager for "voluntary" population control, would you like your injection in the arm or the leg?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacGuiver, even if I agreed that all these social problems are new (I don't agree with that: I think we're just more open about them*), I don't think that would really change my main argument. That is, the way to improvement is not simply to preach conservative morality, it's to arm people with solid information so they can make informed choices. 

Simply put: preaching does not work. Teenagers explore and they always have. Men have always sought multiple partners, often the same men who preach the virtues of monogamy. Women have been inducing miscarriage for centuries. Homosexuality is probably as old as sexuality itself. And, most importantly, absolutely everything in life comes with risks; all we can do is make sure people understand those risks and help them avoid the worst ones. You can't accomplish that by lumping a bunch of disparate things under the heading of "immoral" or "sinful" and hoping for the best.

As for the bigger picture: I think it's extremely perilous to ignore the dangers of overpopulation and climate change just because people made incorrect predictions 30-40 years ago. I believe that those people were on the right track even if their specific predictions were wrong: the basic point is that the Earth is a closed system, so it does have a finite capacity even if we don't yet know precisely what it is. Do we really want to find out what the system's total capacity is by waiting to see what happens when it's exceeded? That's our current path.

(Science also reveals that the Earth's climate has historically seen considerable warming and cooling without any human intervention: so we do need to prepare for climate change, regardless of what causes it.)

So, ultimately, I agree in a roundabout way that we have a "culture of death": there is already unfathomable death and misery in many parts of the world, brought on by overpopulation and environmental degradation, but for the most part we in North America prefer to look inward at our own relatively small problems, and we have a growing obsession with prolonging our lives at any price. The idea that we can continue to do that indefinitely is simply a soothing fantasy. I suppose there's a small comfort in the fact that many of us will <i>probably</i> have the chance to live out the rest of our days within that fantasy.

* How did HIV transform in a half-century from a simian virus rarely found in humans to an epidemic STD? It seems the root answer is that population pressures in sub-Saharan Africa led to more people going deeper into the bush for more monkey and chimp meat, leading to more transmission to humans; longstanding sexual mores, poor nutrition and poor general health did the rest. And guess what? Rare tropical viruses in general, sexually transmitted or not, now pose a much greater threat than ever because of ubiquitous global travel and growing human populations.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Mark Fiore's comment

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/angels.html


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good commentary iMatt. 
Syphilis also bred into a devasting disease from a rather benign form and if this brand of avian flu with it's 60 % mortality rate hits big then we may see a "correction" of a horrific nature.

The sooner ww ALL wake up and deal with the real dangers the more comfortable I'll feel about my kids future.
This is going to crest within the next 50 years - many will still be alive to see how it plays out.

BTW ask a raptor about a book called Silent Spring and the positive impact that warning call had on their very existence as a species. 

Two decades - all that's left for all four of our closest biological cousins.

I'll take and heed Suzukis concerns, and that of many many scientists and conservationists around the world, over irrelevant and dangerously outmoded ontology that hand our responsibility to our environs over to some "sacred texts and the nonsense derived from them"

ANYTHING that gets in the way in any manner of getting the world population down to a sustainable level is the enemy not only of my kids but every species on the planet.
Forces of nature WILL deal with us if we don't - but by that time hundreds of complex creatures a million years in the making will be GONE.

The passenger pigeons blackened the sun............



> The very thought of so many birds is impossible for us to imagine, and that the Passenger Pigeon, considered to be the most numerous bird in the world, was made extinct in such a short time. Authors have said that there were more Passenger Pigeons in North America than all of the other birds in the world combined. In the early 1800s, it was estimated that there were an estimated 2 billion (2,000,000,000) Passenger Pigeons. (That is an inconceivable number). Accurate estimates now place the total number of Passenger Pigeons in North American during that time at somewhere between 3-5 billion birds.


There were complex civilizations that sustained themselves for MILLENIA on THIS continent without overpopulating it. There are societies in New Guinea that sustained themselves and still do for 10's of thousands of years. They control their populations in ways far harder than we have at hand.

We've screwed it up in a couple of hundred years. 

I miss the moths and butterflies, the sound of frogs and crickets, the birds. They're going....even within my lifetime........more's the pity.

Sustainable human population runs somewhere between 350 and 600 million for the planet - up until the 1860s or so the world population stayed in that range for all the years til then.

Now 6 billion climbing to 9 and a huge number in abject poverty .......but oh no let's not provide wide spread birth control..........god will provide?????......horsepucky....and idiots like Bush and his religious right putting up every barrier. You can hear him pontificate on the latest "progress".....right now on TV.

One death at a time.........


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I don't think I could ad anything at this point. MacDoc and iMatt have eloquently stated the case. 

The fact that church continues it's dogmatic stance against promoting safe sex education shows that the institution is doing more harm than good in this day and age.


----------

