Posted on 12/23/2010 9:24:33 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In an unprecedented but unfortunately anticipated move, the Food and Drug Administration has decided to withdraw regulatory approval for the life extending (and sometimes life saving) cancer drug Avastin, solely on the basis of cost.
Sarah Palin's death panels have begun their work. The lives of tens of thousands of women will be shorted because of this decision. A few women, whose cancers have actually gone into remission because of Avastin treatment in conjunction with chemotherapy, may well be condemned to die.
The decision, based on the recommendation of a 13-member panel, only two of them breast-cancer oncologists, will have real world consequences for real women. One of those women is the mother of Josh Turnage, whose life was saved by Avastin treatment. Turnage made an impassioned plea for his mother's life in a recent commentary in the New York Post.
"Then just 44, she had 'triple negative breast cancer,' a rare and particularly lethal form of the disease. Most traditional treatments tend to do little to fend it off. A year after the initial diagnosis, the doctor told our family that the cancer had gone metastatic, or Stage IV, and had spread to her right lung....
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
He should quickly back up the “solely on the basis of cost” comment. Does he?
they’re not going to come out and say that. That’s not how the game is played.
You can read about the side effects here (pretty hideous).
Sloppy writing. The research and conclusion may be sloppy as well.
Wanna bet that drugs to treat AIDS are kept available and paid for by the government? Let the old people die but keep the (*&%^%#**&*^) alive so they can continue their dangerous behavior and demand more help from the government.
You are absolutely right!!!!
It saves more lives than it takes. Cancer is a pretty hideous too.
But they still allow it for the treatement of colorectal cancer, in spite of the side effects.
It’s not the side effects alone which they give as the reason. From one of the comments where the article is, there was an FDA quote saying, “the drug does not prolong overall survival in breast cancer patients or provide a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients”.
Sounds like they’re saying it’s not effective enough, doesn’t work enough to justify the risk.
But that sounds stupid to me. Deny somebody the chance to try to delay death because they might get high blood pressure that leads to death? The worst that could happen in either situation is death so what’s the big concern about risks? To trade certain death for probable death is not a risky trade.
Seems to me that the talk about risk when you’re dealing with a fatal disease is just a smokescreen. Seems like either way the person is probably gonna die, and the issue is whether you “waste” money on trying to save them.
Could be that the drug is very effective in treating certain kinds of cancers - such as the case cited in the story. If the drug has been used as an experimental treatment (as indicated in the story cited), it wouldn’t be right to use the results of that to determine effectiveness when used for only the specific kinds of cancer that it is effective against.
The drug was definitely effective in the cases cited. If the drug can work very effectively for some cancers, why not let those cancer victims use the drug?
I suggest you go read up on it before you post.
"If You're Spending Other People's Money Then They Have A Say In How That Money Is Spent."
Everyone on Medicare and Medicaid is spending my money. I do not want that money to go to colossally expensive therapies with marginal rates of success.
Nor do I want that money to go to three month stays in hospital ICUs which have zero probability of anything but a fatal outcome.
That's because it's MY MONEY. Medicare and Medicaid recipients did not buy an annuity, folks. They have been on the taxpayer's dime since the program started in 1965.
Spending your own money??? Buy all the health care you want, with my blessing.
I suggest you check your condescension at the door. I read up on it before this thread was posted. I know more about it than I ever wanted to. If you knew what I know about it, maybe you wouldn’t be so quick to shove your foot down your throat.
Sarah Palin’s death panels? What drivel.
Are you going to refund the money that was taken from them by force, and provide them with the insurance coverage they could have purchased with that money?
To be shared with your associates.
I’d give them a check for every cent they paid in, plus 5% compound interest, less what has already been spent from Medicare/Medicaid for their care.
“Sarah Palin’s death panels have begun their work.
Sloppy writing. The research and conclusion may be sloppy as well.”
agree. thet are democrat libtard death panels (since dear leader was too lazy to help with creating the mostrosity).
I’m not sure what I said to earn such a nasty reply.
What I was referring to was the numerous data showing that the drug has very mixed results, and in most cases does not provide a cure, rather just a slowing in growth of the tumor. Certainly I have seen no evidence to support the author’s conclusion that the drug was banned because of cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.