Spring Break
Daily drugs for everyone?
Royal Purple staff
Issue date: 11/19/08 Section: Opinion
Affirmative
Isn't it better to be proactive rather then reactive? From policing to car maintenance, there is an importance placed on catching problems before they pose more of a threat. The same is true with our bodies. It is suggested men and women obtain yearly physicals for a reason, to catch early onset of any medical malfunctions. Catching a tumor at stage one is the key to survival, like many other diseases.
How is this issue any different? Taking a pill or even a couple could save and lengthen lives.
There seems to be a stigma placed on pills as the start of a never-ending cycle of dependency. It's true to a certain point, people depend on drugs today to function, offset serious disease and even stay alive. With correct dosages and proper indications, drug usage doesn't need to be feared but becomes a simple daily task.
It isn't a foreign or frightening concept for many patients or pharmacy customers who have to take home 10 to 20 prescriptions just for ailments they already have and supplemental drugs for side affects. Persons aged 65 and older make up just 13 percent of the population, yet consume 35 percent of all prescription drugs in the United States, according to a study conducted by Medscape Today.
It seems common sense that someone taking one, two or even five preventative drugs earlier in life would not only have decreased the seriousness of ailments, it also lessens future drug needs. Taking preventative drugs could actually decrease the likelihood of more widespread drug dependency.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Certain drugs can be given to those with a family history of diseases such as cancer and high blood pressure, which are strongly hereditary. High-risk individuals could receive a better shot at long life which their genetics don't naturally provide for.
Of course, there are other factors besides family history. In 2002, The World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Program estimated about three million children under the age of five die every year due to environmental hazards. According to the National Cancer Institute, skin cancer has been rising at an alarming rate with about one million new cases just this year. There is a genuine need to arm ourselves with an agent to help offset the same problem that helps spread and speed the rate of infection.
Negative
The problem here is dependency, though it's not dependency in the traditional sense of physical or psychological addiction-we're on a much different path, one that could alter the social fabric of the future.
According to criticism in "The Lancet," a peer-reviewed medical journal, the results of the Jupiter clinical trial drew conclusions extensively based on data extrapolation, a way of making assumptions beyond what was actually observed.
Additionally, isn't there a conflict of interest here? Science is about peer review and unbiased oversight, yet this trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company responsible for the development, production and marketing of Crestor.
There are other danger signs. In economics, it's said "there is no free lunch." In many ways, this situation is much the same.
First and foremost, long-term side effects should be of utmost concern. Crestor's active ingredient is metabolized by the liver, so from the get go it's another tax on an organ already stressed by alcohol and painkiller consumption and further exacerbated by pollutants found in our everyday environment-ironically, the very byproducts of the same industrial processes that make mass-market pharmaceuticals possible.
The FDA posted an alert in March 2005, warning users of statins, the class of cholesterol-control drugs Crestor falls under, of the potential for severe muscle damage.
The value issue extends into the availability of the drug. Will the inevitable expense of preventative medicine act to further separate us into a society of haves and have nots? It epitomizes social Darwinism, a shrewd theory that extends the concept of evolution to individual and group success in a specialized society, and makes money an ever-more-prominent selection pressure, equating wealth with survival.
Don Dellilo's 1985 classic novel "White Noise" features characters so gripped by the fear of death they turned to an experimental commercial pharmaceutical called Dylar. In much the same way, daily use of drugs like Crestor is a method of psychological escape-life is invariably a roll of the dice … perhaps they can be thrown a certain manner with a temporary and minor influence on the outcome, but life's the one game in which nobody gets out alive.
Isn't it better to be proactive rather then reactive? From policing to car maintenance, there is an importance placed on catching problems before they pose more of a threat. The same is true with our bodies. It is suggested men and women obtain yearly physicals for a reason, to catch early onset of any medical malfunctions. Catching a tumor at stage one is the key to survival, like many other diseases.
How is this issue any different? Taking a pill or even a couple could save and lengthen lives.
There seems to be a stigma placed on pills as the start of a never-ending cycle of dependency. It's true to a certain point, people depend on drugs today to function, offset serious disease and even stay alive. With correct dosages and proper indications, drug usage doesn't need to be feared but becomes a simple daily task.
It isn't a foreign or frightening concept for many patients or pharmacy customers who have to take home 10 to 20 prescriptions just for ailments they already have and supplemental drugs for side affects. Persons aged 65 and older make up just 13 percent of the population, yet consume 35 percent of all prescription drugs in the United States, according to a study conducted by Medscape Today.
It seems common sense that someone taking one, two or even five preventative drugs earlier in life would not only have decreased the seriousness of ailments, it also lessens future drug needs. Taking preventative drugs could actually decrease the likelihood of more widespread drug dependency.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Certain drugs can be given to those with a family history of diseases such as cancer and high blood pressure, which are strongly hereditary. High-risk individuals could receive a better shot at long life which their genetics don't naturally provide for.
Of course, there are other factors besides family history. In 2002, The World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Program estimated about three million children under the age of five die every year due to environmental hazards. According to the National Cancer Institute, skin cancer has been rising at an alarming rate with about one million new cases just this year. There is a genuine need to arm ourselves with an agent to help offset the same problem that helps spread and speed the rate of infection.
Negative
The problem here is dependency, though it's not dependency in the traditional sense of physical or psychological addiction-we're on a much different path, one that could alter the social fabric of the future.
According to criticism in "The Lancet," a peer-reviewed medical journal, the results of the Jupiter clinical trial drew conclusions extensively based on data extrapolation, a way of making assumptions beyond what was actually observed.
Additionally, isn't there a conflict of interest here? Science is about peer review and unbiased oversight, yet this trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company responsible for the development, production and marketing of Crestor.
There are other danger signs. In economics, it's said "there is no free lunch." In many ways, this situation is much the same.
First and foremost, long-term side effects should be of utmost concern. Crestor's active ingredient is metabolized by the liver, so from the get go it's another tax on an organ already stressed by alcohol and painkiller consumption and further exacerbated by pollutants found in our everyday environment-ironically, the very byproducts of the same industrial processes that make mass-market pharmaceuticals possible.
The FDA posted an alert in March 2005, warning users of statins, the class of cholesterol-control drugs Crestor falls under, of the potential for severe muscle damage.
The value issue extends into the availability of the drug. Will the inevitable expense of preventative medicine act to further separate us into a society of haves and have nots? It epitomizes social Darwinism, a shrewd theory that extends the concept of evolution to individual and group success in a specialized society, and makes money an ever-more-prominent selection pressure, equating wealth with survival.
Don Dellilo's 1985 classic novel "White Noise" features characters so gripped by the fear of death they turned to an experimental commercial pharmaceutical called Dylar. In much the same way, daily use of drugs like Crestor is a method of psychological escape-life is invariably a roll of the dice … perhaps they can be thrown a certain manner with a temporary and minor influence on the outcome, but life's the one game in which nobody gets out alive.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Mgood
posted 11/19/08 @ 7:41 AM CST
Safety, effectiveness and cost must be the three considerations. As far as cholesterol-related illnesses go, only one medication, thus far, has proven to qualify for proactive use. (Continued…)
Mgood
Mgood
posted 11/19/08 @ 7:52 AM CST
Safety, effectiveness and cost must be the three considerations. As far as cholesterol-related illnesses go, only one medication, thus far, has proven to qualify for proactive use. (Continued…)
Post a Comment