Comments on: Sask NDP introduces 2 Tier Healthcare ; The OPP blames you for Canada Post’s delays http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2006/03/28/sask-ndp-introduces-2-tier-healthcare-the-opp-blames-you-for-canada-posts-delays/ News, Insights, and Humour Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:21:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Saskboy http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2006/03/28/sask-ndp-introduces-2-tier-healthcare-the-opp-blames-you-for-canada-posts-delays/#comment-123 Saskboy Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:45:57 +0000 http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2006/03/28/sask-ndp-introduces-2-tier-healthcare-the-opp-blames-you-for-canada-posts-delays/#comment-123 Todd, let me clarify a point you brought up from another <a href="http://www.abandonedstuff.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=125" rel="nofollow">blog entry</a>. I don't generally respect someone's choice to go on a pharmacutical solution when the cause of an illness is unknown, or potentially effective non-medicinal means haven't yet been tried. With something like cancer, timing of treatment is essential and extending someone's comfortable life by many months is money well spent. My argument though is that the drug itself isn't likely made of expensive materials and could be made on the black market for pennies. Is it right that a company can hold a patent on an invention that saves lives, and thus price some people out of the best treatment humanity has devised for an illness? People are dying sooner than they would because of a patent - an idea on a bit of paper. I agree some things need rationing in order for us to not run out of them, but drug rationing in a developed nation is cruel and not at all adhering to the principle of socialized medicine. Todd, let me clarify a point you brought up from another blog entry.
I don’t generally respect someone’s choice to go on a pharmacutical solution when the cause of an illness is unknown, or potentially effective non-medicinal means haven’t yet been tried. With something like cancer, timing of treatment is essential and extending someone’s comfortable life by many months is money well spent. My argument though is that the drug itself isn’t likely made of expensive materials and could be made on the black market for pennies. Is it right that a company can hold a patent on an invention that saves lives, and thus price some people out of the best treatment humanity has devised for an illness? People are dying sooner than they would because of a patent - an idea on a bit of paper.

I agree some things need rationing in order for us to not run out of them, but drug rationing in a developed nation is cruel and not at all adhering to the principle of socialized medicine.

]]> By: Todd http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2006/03/28/sask-ndp-introduces-2-tier-healthcare-the-opp-blames-you-for-canada-posts-delays/#comment-122 Todd Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:35:30 +0000 http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2006/03/28/sask-ndp-introduces-2-tier-healthcare-the-opp-blames-you-for-canada-posts-delays/#comment-122 I must be one of those Paxil users that you aren't impressed with regarding their attitudes or behaviour, but the cancer drug you are talking about isn't going to save their lives. It will prolong it but at a cost of $5,000 per month. Thinking about my parents, I would do everything to try to help them get the drug if they needed it if I could give them even one more month of life. But when does a procedure become so expensive and only able to sustain life for an extra month or two that it would hurt affordability of the system for everyone. If paying for this drug means that we can't afford to pay for drugs or procedures that *will* save lives, should we pay for them? Just something to think about. I must be one of those Paxil users that you aren’t impressed with regarding their attitudes or behaviour, but the cancer drug you are talking about isn’t going to save their lives. It will prolong it but at a cost of $5,000 per month. Thinking about my parents, I would do everything to try to help them get the drug if they needed it if I could give them even one more month of life. But when does a procedure become so expensive and only able to sustain life for an extra month or two that it would hurt affordability of the system for everyone. If paying for this drug means that we can’t afford to pay for drugs or procedures that *will* save lives, should we pay for them? Just something to think about.

]]>