The government shouldn't regulate ineffective drugs

Still beating that drum and pushing liberal logic, I see.

If you take an ineffective drug and you die, the drug did not kill you, the disease you hoped it might cure did.

If a drug is ruled effective by the FDA but it doesn't prevent a patient from dying, did the effective drug kill the patient?

If someone takes a contraversial drug that has been widely recommended against by experts, then they are taking a large risk which they believe will yield a large return.

FDA approved drugs and treatments do not have anything close to a 100% success rate with many serious diseases. I'm quite sure we can find cases where people have taken unapproved drugs and survived there illnesses. Perhaps the drug helped them or maybe it was a placebo effect. Maybe it was something entirely different. If the approved drugs don't work and the FDA will not allow the patient to try alternatives, is the FDA responsible for the his or her death from the underlying disease?

If the approval process take years and years because FDA personnel are afraid of being wrong, are they responsible for all of the deaths that occur while an ultimately FDA labeled effective drug is kept off the market?

If someone has a raging infection and, rather than taking antibiotics, choses to avail themselves only of acupuncture and time in a sweat lodge, there's a good chance they will die.

I see this as someone making a very poor choice, but if you want to phrase it terms of fault and damn fault, be my guest.

Clearly you are of the opinion that some people cannot be trusted to make sensible, informed decisions and therefore everyone's right to choose must be taken away by the government.

Moreover, you apparently aren't all that troubled by the patients who die for want of a drug tied up in the FDA approval process, and believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you is heartless.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If you take an ineffective drug and you die, the drug did not kill you, the disease you hoped it might cure did.

If you take an ineffective drug instead of an effective one and you die, then I'm quite content to say that the ineffective drug killed you. So, for instance, all of those people who died after taking an ineffective nostrum like Laetrile instead of undergoing cancer therapies that were proven effective were killed by Laetrile just as surely as if they had taken poison instead. The only difference is that poison would have been quicker, less painful, and less costly.

As Laetrile became newsworthy, several cancer victims treated with it drew widespread media scrutiny. One was Chad Green, who developed acute lymphocytic leukemia at age 2. Although he was rapidly brought into remission with chemotherapy, his parents started him on "metabolic therapy" administered by a Manner Metabolic Physician. When Chad developed signs of cyanide toxicity, Massachusetts authorities had him declared a ward of the court for treatment purposes only. His parents then brought suit to reinstitute "metabolic therapy." When the court ruled against them, they fled with Chad to Mexico, where he was treated by Dr. Contreras. Several months later Chad died in a manner suggestive of cyanide poisoning. Dr. Contreras stated that the boy had died of leukemia, but was a good example of the effectiveness of Laetrile because he had died a pleasant death! Chad's parents stated that he had become very depressed because he missed his grandparents, his friends and his dog.

This whole conversation stemmed from an inability on Finn's part to admit that being against clean air and water regulations is explicitly being FOR higher levels of pollution in our air and water.

It's no different than the government banning cocaine and other narcotics as well.

A sick person is not an effective worker; therefore, there is a large net positive when we (as a society) have some sort of assurance that the treatments for various ailments are actually doing what they are supposed to do...