Free speech shouldn’t be victim of health care reform

by Bob Weeks on August 19, 2009

At a forum on health care in Wichita held last Sunday, Dr. Douglas Bradham, DrPH, professor and chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health at the KU Medical School-Wichita, said this:

“Direct-to-patient advertising for procedures and for pharmaceuticals, in my mind, should be eliminated.” The audience — a left-leaning group — applauded.

Bradham then gave a few reasons why this advertising is harmful. He’s probably correct in his diagnosis.

But the suppression of free speech that would be necessary to implement his recommendation is intolerable. I’m surprised that the audience agreed with Bradham’s proposed restrictions on such a basic human right.

Related posts:

  1. In Wichita, concern shown for direction of health care
  2. After U.S. health care reform, where will Canadians go?
  3. Health care about to get worse
  4. Physician to speak on health care reform in Wichita
  5. Health care reform threatens anesthesiology, patients
  6. President Obama’s health care speech
  7. Health care talk gives alternative to big-government reform
  8. John Stossel covers Canadian health care
  9. The right to health care
  10. Reform health care so it really works

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Thomas E. Scherer August 19, 2009 at 9:40 pm

I disagree with the author related to DTC advertising by the drug companies advertising new drugs new to the drug pipeline that have not been on the market long enough to know if they are safe for the American Public. Such as gardasil, toe fungus medication and other ridiculus drugs that should never been on the market in the first place. Until we get an FDA that is consumer friendly instead of drug mfg. friendly, the only drugs that should be advertised on TV are those that have been on the market for seven years or more. Arguing free speech argument is absurd. If free speech is the issue, then by that argument, pornography should be allowed also as free speech during prime time viewing hours. I reject the author’s argument. And that’s why I am running for Congress and the author is not. Sounds like he is more a pimp for the drug industry.

2 Benjamin August 21, 2009 at 12:46 am

Mr. Scherer, so you are running for Tiahrts soon to be vacant seat? So how do you feel about the “Federal” Reserve, 2nd Amendment, the 2 wars and illegal immigration?

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: