Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!topaz!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu From: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Medicine Message-ID: <12235887199.16.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 3-Sep-86 00:55:50 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12235887199.16.MCGREW Posted: Wed Sep 3 00:55:50 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Sep-86 04:25:59 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 28 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu [ I am uncomfortable with the thought of a doctor coming along after 5 years and saying, "well, you shouldn't have been taking that allergy drug, fella - it causes leprosy! Gee, I'm sorry, but you know, let the buyer beware!" ... -CWM] This is the real world. Drugs do have side effects. The risks and benefits of a drug must be weighed by SOMEONE. I say that someone should be the person at risk. You imply it should be doctors and/or government bureaucrats, and the patient should have no say in the matter. It isn't fair to use the existence of side effects against my position. The side effects would be just as great whether the risks and benefits were weighed by a doctor or by a patient. In fact, you never say in your leprosy scenario just who selected that allergy drug. I could have used the very same paragraph and said "by the way, this drug was suggested by the doctor" to bolster MY case. ...Keith [ Clearly, it doesn't matter who suggested the drug: it could be nobody beyond the ad for the drug ("clears sinuses and whitens teeth", or whatever). In a purely libertarian society, the seller of the drug is within his rights to sell anything to anyone who will buy, with things balancing out afterward. A typical rejoinder to unregulated medicine is that word will get around and the seller will not be able to sell any more. This is not so good for the people who get zapped before word gets around. Is this such a good thing? - CWM] -------