The Electric Commentary

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Democrats and Privacy

The Coyote Blog has an excellent post on a potential winning issue for the Democrats, but he's skeptical, as am I:

It just so happens a perfect example is sitting right at the top of Instapundit this morning: Teresa Nielsen Hayden apparently takes the drug Cylert to treat her narcolepsy. For a while, it has been known that Cylert can cause some liver trouble. She apparently knows this, has a doctor monitor her liver health, but is willing to take this risk because she apparently is fine with accepting some risk of liver trouble in exchange for substantially improved quality of life.

The problem is, the liberal/progressive Public Citizen group has fought hard and successfully to deny her this choice for her own body. This type action is not an exception, but rather is fundamental to the left/Democrat agenda, i.e. We are smarter than you about making choices, and we would never risk liver disease to cure narcolepsy (though we have never lived through narcolepsy ourselves) so we are not going to allow you to make that decision for yourself. Vioxx users, like acute-pain sufferers for whom Vioxx is really the first treatment to allow them to enjoy life again without incapacitating pain, have also been denied this choice. So have folks who want to get breast implants, manage their own retirement (social Security) funds, ride motorcycles without helmets and drive cars without seat belts. One case that is quite revealing is NOW's insistence that women, even at the age of 13, have the ability and absolute right to make abortion decisions without government intervention, but that these same women are completely incapable of making breast implant decisions so they demand that the government curtail this choice.


Than again, when has the Democratic Party (or the Republican Party) let hypocrisy get in the way of a good talking point.

The Coyote's post is long, but well worth reading.

7 Comments:

  • Good points. If you all will rally to legalize marijuana, I will rally to allow corporate drugs and procedures, despite their track records or risks. True choice, particularly if I am not buying or selling my drug, or affecting others. Fair play, no hypocrisies. Until then though, it seems like a lot of personal choices are not allowed. You can't play nanny state on some potentially safe drugs/procedures and not expect it for others. Sucks, eh?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:16 PM  

  • Sucks indeed.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 10:01 PM  

  • I'm about as anti-regulation on these types of things as anyone. (People usually look horrified when I tell them I'm in favor of bringing back Thalidomide and DDT, but I am.) But I'm also a partisan Democrat, so I want to point out that I've never seen any evidence that Democrats play politics with these things more than Republicans. The notion that wanting to keep Vioxx out of people's medicine cabinets is "fundamental to the left/Democratic agenda" is silly.

    By Blogger MDS, at 2:10 PM  

  • It's not that silly. Each party has its own nanny state issues, and legal drugs are firmly in the Democratic camp. Illegal drugs: Republicans.

    Republicans play politics with all sorts of similar issues, but they are generally more hostile to the FDA, although the FDA can mainly be blamed on the American people.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 2:27 PM  

  • Well, I don't want to write 1,000 words here on how stupid it is that an agency meant to ensure food safety had drugs added to its mission, so I'll try to be brief and limit this to two points.

    1. The Republican FDA is devoted primarily to two things, keeping contraception away from people and keeping drugs nice and expensive.

    2. If keeping people from getting drugs is fundamental to the Democratic mission, how come when I search the official Democratic Web site for articles that mention the FDA, nearly every one of them is criticizing the FDA for not approving a drug?

    By Blogger MDS, at 5:08 AM  

  • 2. Probably because Republicans are in charge right now.

    1. Republicans are also douchebags when it comes to when it comes to drugs that have some stupid "moral" issue. I should have mentioned that too. Illegal drugs and drugs related to sex in someway.

    I'd love to see democrats openly advocate for a less obtrusive FDA, and it's good that they do have such criticism on their website, but in general, over the last 20 years or so, and especially when Clinton was president, this was not the case.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 10:24 AM  

  • Perhaps because both parties get paternalistic when they are in charge, or because Democrats also seem to embrace the rhetoric of protecting people from big bad industry and this issue can fit within that rhetoric.

    By Anonymous Scott H, at 5:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Search:
Keywords:
Amazon Logo