Rip Their Lungs Out!

[Ed Hudgins]

Rip Their Lungs Out!

By Edward Hudgins

September 30, 2011 -- This one will take your breath away and, when you recover, teach you a life-saving philosophy lesson.

The Obama administration’s Food and Drug Administration is banning the sale of over-the-counter epinephrine inhalers used by thousands of asthma sufferers. Those who literally want to breathe will be required to use another type of device that will be available by prescription only and cost up to $60, compared to the less costly $20 devices.

Why? Do the current inhalers, which are quick and easy to obtain by those who feel an attack coming on, in fact harm the user? No! The excuse of Obama’s FDA is that the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) aerosol in the current devices harms the ozone layer. (The FDA is supposed to test the safety and efficacy of medical devices to humans, so this FDA action is out of its jurisdiction. Here, the FDA is doing the Environmental Protection Agency’s dirty work. But I quibble.)

So how many squirts of asthma inhalers would it actually take to punch a hole in the atmosphere, presumably sunburning us into cancer-ridden, crispy critters? How many would it take even to be measurable much less to actually, demonstrably harm humans?

I can find no good data. Maybe that’s because another excuse for this action is that the United States government, which is supposed to protect the lives of Americans, has signed an international agreement to eliminate all CFCs, no matter how many Americans such an action would harm. But in fact, the government has a lot of leeway in how it interprets this stupid pledge. It didn’t have to do this.

Who decided?

So what’s going on when the government takes an action that demonstrably will impose added cost, inconvenience, and actual harm on asthmatics?

You’ve heard of germophobes, people unreasonably afraid of germs? Well, many environmentalists are like chemophobes. They’re afraid of every manmade substance, no matter how small the amounts. They don’t have an objective standard to determine actual harm to humans. They just “feel” it. And many don’t put a primacy on humans, anyway. They care about “environment,” as opposed to human.

What’s worse is the many environmentalist collectivists assert a right to impose their phobias on the rest of us. Now, in a free society we’re each responsible for our own lives and, in society with others, seek our survival and well-being through free exchange and mutual consent. Pharmaceutical companies are free to seek profits by offering inhalers to asthmatics and asthmatics are free to purchase the products they think best meet their needs. It’s none of the government’s damned business.

But many environmentalists presume to impose upon the rest of us their prejudices.

Give a lung

Alright, let’s play by their nonrules. I believe that those who make such decisions should “share” in the consequences. Those who are banning the asthma inhalers should be required to experience what it’s like to have asthma and the misery they are inflicting on asthma sufferers. Let ‘em know what it’s like to gasp for air. Here’s my modest proposal:

Everyone in the Obama administration who is connected with medical devices or the environment, or Obama policy of any kind, should be required to have a lung surgically removed. That’s right, put them all under the knife!

That’s the president himself, the VP, the cabinet, over a thousand political appointees, some 11,000 FDA employees, and over 18,000 EPA workers. I’d also include any member of Congress who does not vote for the immediate repeal of this inhaler rule. And this move will provide organs for half of the over 70,000 Americans waiting for lung transplants!

What? You object to me lumping individuals into an anonymous group and imposing on them onerous requirements that will make them suffer in the name of some social good? And the standard seems pretty arbitrary? Well, now you know how asthma sufferers feel!

-----

Hudgins is director of advocacy and senior scholar at The Atlas Society.

[Selene]

Ed:

I was going to post on this specific outrage. I happen to use the over the counter Primatene inhaler. Having used the prescription inhalers, I find Primatene to be less expensive and more effective for me.

I called the Armstrong Pharmaceuticals Inc. company on Monday and spoke with some of their administrative folks, http://www.armstrong-pharma.com/. I had several items that I wanted to discuss with them, one of which involved being a litigant in a suit against the FDA. That conversation is continuing next week.

Here is the Press Release that they issued July 27th, 2011, which I was not aware of:

http://www.primatene.com/doc/PressRelease07-27-2011.pdf

To be continued...

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

I saw this asthma inhaler ban on the news and thought to myself that it is another legal measure to be rescinded later, hopefully soon into 2012.

Your imaginary scenario, of course, could be used by progressives to show just how heartless right-wingers are. I seriously doubt it would ever occur to them, though, that the difference--in results--between a forced amputation and withholding treatment from an organ that is using it is the same: something that was working just fine stops working.

Here's an idea. How about a federal entitlement program to fund the rise in cost for asthma sufferers due to now needed prescriptions, alternative treatments, and so forth? Now that's humane.

It kinda makes you wanna go look up certain politicians, get in bed with them, and buy stock in the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture products (inhalers and otherwise) that will be on the approved list for being purchased with federal medical aid funds.

See?

Lots of productive ideas here.

(btw - I love the eye-catching title. It should get a lot of eyeballs on your article.)

Michael

[studiodekadent]

As an asthmatic, I find this a truly disturbing occurrence.

What's even more screwed up about this is that asthma inhalers don't need to use CFCs in the first place. My Ventolin inhaler uses hydrocarbon as a propellant!

If they're trying to replace inhalers with another (and pricier) type of device, simply because of the propellant (which can be changed), I am honestly shocked. This is bizzare bureaucratic overreach. An obvious example of using a cannon to swat a housefly. And a clear case of a bureaucracy doing something monumentally dumb and self-defeating!

[GALTGULCH8]

Et al,

Now if a certain physician, who favors the free market and is opposed to government intervention, became president, there is no doubt that the various alphabet soup agencies would themselves be abolished once and for all.

He is trying hard and his poll numbers are pretty consistent.

http://www.ibopezogby.com/news/2011/09/26/ibope-zogby-poll-perry-plummets-18-trails-cain-lead-among-gop-primary-voters/

Although Rasmussen has him down ten points recently.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_44_paul_34

But a month ago they were virtually even.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_39_paul_38

If you allow yourself to imagine him as president for a minute you know certain things would be within his power to do such as to cut off funding to offensive agencies such as the EPA.

To my knowledge he has few if any large donors but his supporters respond to his requests for donations vigorously. Here is the result of his present plea for funds to finish the third quarter and enable him to "target voter mail blitz in key early primary and caucus states."

https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/index_1.php?sr=16-0930a

Not bad considering most of the donations are less than a hundred bucks. $1,441,194.69

Gary Johnson would be preferable but his candidacy is virtually invisible so far.

Now if only Obama himself were to see the light and got behind the lung removal agenda as an act of self sacrifice. The Incas once had everyone believing that the sun would not come up in the morning unless humans were sacrificed by having their hearts cut out of their chests to the cheers of the populace when the sun miraculously appeared.

[Selene]

As an asthmatic, I find this a truly disturbing occurrence.

What's even more screwed up about this is that asthma inhalers don't need to use CFCs in the first place. My Ventolin inhaler uses hydrocarbon as a propellant!

If they're trying to replace inhalers with another (and pricier) type of device, simply because of the propellant (which can be changed), I am honestly shocked. This is bizzare bureaucratic overreach. An obvious example of using a cannon to swat a housefly. And a clear case of a bureaucracy doing something monumentally dumb and self-defeating!

In this press release, http://www.primatene...e07-27-2011.pdf , the company explains that they are "actively finalizing a CFC free" Primatene Inhaler. This statist stupidity is the result of the signing of the Montreal Protocol Treaty http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/ and the Wiki link http://en.wikipedia....ntreal_Protocol

Edited October 1, 2011 by Selene

[anthony]

Not an asthmatic sufferer, but I well recall a girl-friend often fumbling desperately for that lifesaver, while choking to breathe - and all one can do is watch helplessly. I hesitate to call anything evil, but the cap fits here.

Where does interference in personal lives end with these governments?

There could be consolation in the fact that the tiniest of cracks sometimes sinks a ship.

Tony

[9thdoctor]

I think the whole ozone scare bears reviewing. Remember how they sold that one, with images of the hole in the ozone layer opening up over Antarctica. A crisis! Environmental activists claimed that CFC’s destroy ozone, but never bothered to explain how CFC’s being used in the northern hemisphere were jumping the equator and making their way to the South Pole. If you study the way the atmosphere works you’ll find that that would be one very neat trick. At one point I recall a panicky news report about how the ozone hole was opening up over North America. I bet that was timed to coincide with some legislation coming up for a vote (this was maybe 20 years ago). Haven’t heard about it since.

Anyway, the ozone hole in Antarctica has everything to do with the tilt of the earth’s axis, since ozone is made by sunlight. The bad news is that ozone is something the environmental movement now claims as a victory, a crisis averted through their efforts. A kind of dress rehearsal for global warming. So a few asthmatics are probably going to die. Collateral damage (shrug).

[Ed Hudgins]

Hi all!

Some folks point out that some large pharmaceutical companies don't mind when the FDA bans a lower-priced item and mandates a higher-priced one, which those companies just happen to make.

There are, of course, several issues here. First, many environmentalists place vague and not-well-supported hypothetical notions of damage to the ecosystem ahead of the real, immediate health and safety of actual human beings. Second, individuals have a right to make their own life choices, including about their healthcare, without government interference. This doesn't imply that others have a moral obligation to sacrifice themselves or the well-being of friends and family to help others. But the point I'm making with the "give a lung" hypothetical is that those who would use government mandates that harm others in cases like the inhaler ban should consider what they are actually doing.