• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Breast Implants: Government Is Everywhere!

AHSPolitician

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Some people wonder: "Why politics? Politics is just a bunch of old men bickering at each other, and it has no every day use. What's the point?"

Well, now you have your answer.

GOVERNMENT IS EVERYWHERE, EVEN IN YOUR BREASTS!

Lately there has been much talk about silicon breast implants. The implants came on the market in 1962, but in 1992 the Food and Drug Administration placed a ban on them for safety reasons. The idea was that the silicon implants would break or leak and cause cancer in the implantees.

But on Wednesday, in a 7-2 panel vote, the FDA concluded that silicon breast implants from Mentor Corp. were safe enough for the public and lifted the ban on the implants. The day before, the same panel rejected a similar silicon product from Inamed Corp., a rival company. The panel concluded that while there was not sufficient research to prove that the Inamed implants were safe, Mentor's research was more convincing.

FDA adviser Stephen Li had this to say:

"We didn't have nearly the questions on [the Mentor implants] that we had on the prior application...Those are the reasons that will let me sleep at night."

Besides the obvious question (does Li really think about breast implants at night?), we can see that this issue creates a few questions pertaining to the federal bureaucracy. These include:

-How much power does the FDA have to act on their own, with no influence from the popularly elected Congress?
-What role does the president play in this process?
-Are these panelists "political appointees" or high level "competitive service" workers?
-What does government NOT have authority to regulate?

It seems silly to me that the government banned these implants at all. Why can't a woman and her doctor decide if she is willing to take the risks of getting silicon implants? Are we going to regulate McDonald's coffee because it is served to hot? Oh wait...they did. There is a ridiculous amount of regulation in this country. Where do we get the funding for all these regulations?

In this case, after approving the appointees, it seems that Congress has little or no power over the decisions the FDA makes. I am surprised at the great power that a non-elected agency has over our lives.

What do you guys think? How much should government be able to regulate? Where do we need to draw the line?

If you wish, you can view the Minneapolis Star Tribune article on the topic HERE
 

Jack Dawson

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Seriously I heard this on the news.

:lol: "Congress said this should be a 'hands on' investigation." I have to believe the reporter knew what they were saying. Thought it was funny. :2wave:
 

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
As a true liberal democrat, in fact what I call a Newliberal, I respect the government's role to define and police a market. Yet, once the government has made an effort to establish the facts, then consumers should be able to choose a product unless it is a danger to the rest of society.

Clearly, women should be able to make informed consent on these products, and the manufacturers should be shielded from lawsuit on this issue.

That a so-called conservative administration, and congress hasn't attacked this topic, shows that anyone can call themselves "conservative" because they don't have to do very much that could be unpopular; whenever it is convenient they can be moderate or liberal and no one cares.

This is a chance for true liberals to be on the side of freedom, more information, and establish the proper role for our government.


Life is full of risk. The government should be the official arbiter of what is true or false in the marketplace. After that, People should be able to take risks that don't harm other people. If a woman knows all of the potential dangers, and accepts that some may not be known yet, but still wants to have these implants, she should be free to do so in this great land.

This case isn't even close. Some drug cases are. Here, The FDA is wrong.

Imagine that we ban breast implants, but we don't ban or effectively regulate guns, cigarettes, alocohol, etc.

Newliberals stand for freedom, justice, and opportunity.

That includes a vibrant private sector defined by ful disclosure, and honesty.

Government should set-up a climate where good-faith producers can earn a living providing products that people want. And those trying to scheme and defraud are caught.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!
 

MOZO

New member
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
What happens in 20 years when these women have chronic health problems? The companies and doctors will have limited liability, when the administration's policies take effect.
We, the taxpayers will be footing the bill.
Most cases of breast implants surgery is not life saving or life altering "medicine".
If you must mutilate your body what's wrong with the saline implants?
 

AHSPolitician

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Minneapolis, MN
craigfarmer said:
If a woman knows all of the potential dangers, and accepts that some may not be known yet, but still wants to have these implants, she should be free to do so in this great land.
Right On.

It seems to me that it should be up to the woman and her doctor. If the doctor truly sees risk in the product, it would be against all ethics for him/her to allow the woman to receive implants. No good doctor would recommend something they know would be harmful.

Shouldn't the FDA let the doctors decide? Or are they incapable? If this is the case then I have lost a lot of faith in med. school.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
MOZO said:
What happens in 20 years when these women have chronic health problems? The companies and doctors will have limited liability, when the administration's policies take effect.
We, the taxpayers will be footing the bill.
Actually, it'll be a revisit of the asbestos claims which really dealt a blow to the insurance industry.
 

MOZO

New member
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
If the current administration has it's way medical liability will be capped. (Unless, something like this is not under that umbrella. Defective product :? )
If there is a cap then the AMA will less cautious. Doctor's don't really have the time to do all the research and the medical industry entices the doctor's to use the newest products.
 

AHSPolitician

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Minneapolis, MN
MOZO said:
Doctor's don't really have the time to do all the research and the medical industry entices the doctor's to use the newest products.
So doesn't it make sense that the industry should do the research in order to sell their product?

I feel like competitive forces would regulate the market for risky medical devices, just like competitive forces regulate the market for cars. People don't buy cars if they know they're not safe, so why should people by drugs, etc. if they know their not safe.

And as far as safety testing should go, there should be a united medical industry effort to test products, rather than making taxpayers pay for it. Imagine how easy it would be for the largest medical firms to enter into some sort safety testing commune. It doesn't make sense that they get these "testing" services essentially for free, just because they put something on the market.

Agreed?
 
S

sebastiansdreams

AHSPolitician said:
So doesn't it make sense that the industry should do the research in order to sell their product?

I feel like competitive forces would regulate the market for risky medical devices, just like competitive forces regulate the market for cars. People don't buy cars if they know they're not safe, so why should people by drugs, etc. if they know their not safe.

And as far as safety testing should go, there should be a united medical industry effort to test products, rather than making taxpayers pay for it. Imagine how easy it would be for the largest medical firms to enter into some sort safety testing commune. It doesn't make sense that they get these "testing" services essentially for free, just because they put something on the market.

Agreed?
Firstly, no, competetion does not always equate to more safe or effecient product, just more sexy and sellable product. Just because something is selling well on the market certainly does not mean that it is the better product, just that it is better advertised and normally cheaper.

And yes, there should be a united medical industry effort to test products, but are you going to fund that and organize it? Because that sort of effort is certainly not putting money in their pockets, and you might find this hard to believe, but without that financial motivation, they might just have better things to do with their time, money, resources, personnel.
 
Top Bottom