I do think that there's a good case for requiring prescriptions for drugs, because the doctor is should be better trained on the potentially dangerous side effects of drugs than the average consumer. (My libertarian/free market side says there's probably a better way to handle this than regulation, but the systems works pretty well for the most part.) But why should medical equipment, such as a defribrillator, require a prescription?
But that's not why I originally brought up this article. I'm more interested in how this issue is presented in the AP story.
Or, they could pick up the phone, call 911, and look for the defibrillator... at the same time! Besides the 911 operator is just going to send an ambulance carrying a team of a paramedics and--a difibrillator!
What really bugs me about this story is the quote from Dr. Thomas H. Lee: "People would be better off spending the money on a health club membership."
That's just stupid and irrelevant. There are people who will always, always be at risk for heart disease no matter what sort of health they're in. The former pastor at my church is an example; he stepped down to an assistant pastor position at another church because of his heart trouble. The doctors told him he was a victim of bad genetics. He could eat right and exercise, but he'd always be at risk for a heart attack. The at-home defribrillator would do him much more good than a health club membership.
The problem with both of the above statements is that it assumes that the average consumer is too stupid to know what's best for him. Individuals are generally the best at deciding what they need for themselves--if only the FDA would figure that out.
Posted by Blog Jones at July 20, 2004 11:46 AM
| Category: Politics