Guaranteed Annual Income: Let's do it!

By Eric Anderson, Globe and Mail, November 19, 2010
But what if we gave... poor Canadians something to count on: cash directly in their pockets, with no conditions, trusting people to do what's right for them?...
The idea of giving money to the poor without strings is not new. It melds altruism and libertarianism, saying both that the best way to fight poverty is to put cash in poor people's pockets and that people can make their own choices better than bureaucrats can. As a result, it can find support in theory from both left and right.

It has been tested with success in other countries, and now it has re-entered the Canadian political conversation.
Although no one should hold his/her breath waiting for such an idea to become government policy, the guaranteed annual income has been "circulating" for at least the last forty or fifty years, in this country, if not longer in others.
The difference is that other countries, to their credit, have actually implemented the measure.
The idea commits the state to more than tokenism and tweeking and a country run by a bureaucracy that is addicted to tokenism and tweeking will be very difficult to ween from these addictions.
In the current situation, one practically needs a Harvard law degree to decipher the regulations for who, when, why, and how much government support is available to an individual or a family. Furthermore, we have acres of offices in Toronto (and all other provincial capitals) and Ottawa dedicated to the employment of people in both provincial and federal governments "administering" government programs, trying themselves to decipher the interpretations of the rules and regulations. And those people, could conceivably be rendered "redundant" and elegible for this very measure.
The cause of the poor has been with us forever and its meaning is never really uncovered by social research, because research into crime does not disclose the meaning in education; and research into education does not disclose the meaning in terms of health care; and research into consumer habits does not disclose the meaning in terms of "social conscience"; and research into alcoholism and drug abuse does not disclose the implications for social planning and heredity. And our research dollars are omitted from the vision and work of the poet, the philosopher and the shaman. The work of these 'thinkers' is considered far less useful and far less objective and far less worthy than the 'scholar' who follows the academic script of scientific research methods. It is only the "specialist" who generates support for research so the "gestalt" of the whole picture must be gleaned from the various government department archives, although Statistics Canada does have much stored data.
However, we will ask only the economists and the accountants if the proposal of the a guaranteed annual income will "cost" more than our current expenditures on social assisntance, and come up with a number that probably will not include reduced costs in various other fields, or various benefits that might be predicted from a fundamental change in our attitudes and our culture's approach to those who struggle to survive.
And depending on whether the "party base" of each political party is convinced of the merits of the idea, the names and atttiudes of those from whom each gathers information to buttress their argument will be reflective of the party's pro or con stance on the issue, so even the researchers will not likely debate the issue, from their unique perspective.
Nevertheless, the very fact that the measure has once again reached the light of day, in the recent parliamentary report on eliminating poverty, is a hopeful sign not only for those who could be recipients, but for a society whose compassion and empathy could use a societal, governmental boost of commitment and real dollars. Teachers, nurses and doctors, policemen and women, court and prison workers, social workers and others in the helping professions will, I assume, likely be heaving a sigh of relief when such a measure becomes a national commitment...until then, they will hunker down in the cubicles of their offices and put band-aids on bigger and more complex open physical and psychic wounds.

Provincial deal on hydro-power..a real breakthrough

By  Shawn McCarthy, Globe and Mail, November 18, 2010
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is celebrating his government’s $6.2-billion deal to develop Labrador hydroelectric power as a declaration of independence from Quebec’s domination in an economically critical, historically controversial industry.

Provincially-owned Nalcor Energy and Halifax-based Emera (EMA-T31.130.581.90%) announced Thursday they have agreed to proceed with the long-delayed development of the Lower Churchill hydro project, as Mr. Williams and Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter trumpeted a new era of economic co-operation in Atlantic Canada.

“Today we sign an agreement on our own terms with another great partner, Emera, which is free of the geographic stranglehold which Quebec has had for far too long on us,” Mr. Williams told a news conference in St. John’s. “Today, we are saying that Quebec will no longer determine the fate of Newfoundland and Labrador, and one of the most attractive clean energy projects in North America.”
Thank you, to both Premiers of Newfoundland/Labrador and Nova Scotia, for negotiating this deal, circumventing the undue influence on the development and transmission of hydro-electric power by the province of Quebec.
As a citizen of Ontario, one has to wonder out loud why is the premier of this province not screaming "foul" at  Quebec's refusal to permit the transmission of power to our province, thereby potentially reducing the costs to consumers, especially with the announcement, just this week, that Ontario electric bills will rise by 46% over the next five years?
For far too long, the concept of interprovincial trade, and interprovincial labour and interprovincial co-operation has been subverted by the parochial, narrow and selfish interests of  provincial fiefdoms, at the expense of the benefits to both those same provinces and the nation, from a more "enlightened" approach.
It is happening again in the field of financial regulation, as the federal Finance Minister struggles in vain to secure permission from the provinces, in this case specifically Quebec and Alberta, to mount an national system of financial regulation.
There will be a federal election in the next twelve months, most likely, and then there will be a leadership contest for the federal Conservative Party and, it says here, the name of Danny Williams will be one of those from which the members of that party will select their next leader (see footnote update below). Here is a no-nonsense, pragmatic, somewhat visionary and certainly not "backward about coming forward" in has manner premier. He has presided over a significant change in the way his province both does business and is perceived by the rest of the country. He is unabashed in his pursuit of the interests of his province, without the time-worn shibboleth of remaining "respectful" until he earns his stripes, as was expected of earlier politicians.
Call him the P.K. Subban of provincial premiers, (one Montreal newspaper has dubbed the rookie, "P.K. Cocky") and I am confident that the current Prime Minister would concur with that assessment, so unbridled in his confrontation of the PM has Williams been.
A sound business deal, eco-friendly and providing the base for some limited export to the U.S. of hydro electric power, reducing green house gases and continuing the transformation of NL to a "have" from a "have-not" province...who can argue with that, except the Innu, who are demanding that the federal government settle their land claims, before they will agree to the new agreement.
And, all Canadians can only hope that the federal government will not bobble this negotiation as they have so many others, like the funding to Parry Sound Muskoka for the G20/G8 while leaving Toronto and its many obvious costs out in the cold, like the non-compete contract for 65 F35 fighter jets, and like the recent bruhaha with the United Arab Emirates over the closure of our air base, because the UAE are not granted landing rights in Canada.
Canadians have lost confidence in the Harper government to be simply "competent" never mind visionary or imaginative. And only their incompetence could subvert this game-changing agreement.

UPDATE
By Sue Bailey, Canadian Press, Toronto Star, November 25, 2010
Premier Danny Williams, the political pugilist from Newfoundland and Labrador whose popularity was the envy of politicians across Canada, is leaving politics before the new year.

IRRESPONSIBLE for Republicans to block START Treaty

Editor's note: Dr. Peter Wilk is the executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the U.S. affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for its work alerting the public and policymakers of the dangers of nuclear war and for their efforts to prevent it.

(By Dr. Peter Wilk, on  CNN website, November 19, 2010) --
Led by Jon Kyl of Arizona, a group of nuclear dinosaurs in the U.S. Senate is trying to block a clear path to a safer, healthier world. That path is the New START, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which significantly reduces America and Russia's nuclear weapons stockpiles and provides a sound protocol for verifying compliance.
President Medvedev of Russia and President Obama of the United States struck the deal last April, and now its fate lies in whether the Senate will vote to ratify it.
At this moment of decision, our elected officials must rise above narrow partisanship and consider how their actions affect our nation's health and security.
As a physician, I am deeply concerned that these two important priorities are being sacrificed to politics.
Senator Richard Lugar, R- Indiana, Speaking at the Department of State, November 17, 2010
SENATOR LUGAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Secretary. Let me simply summarize this point of view. We’re talking today about the national security of the United States of America. The point is not simply a debate among senators at this point, it is a voice of the American people that has to inform senators that this treaty must be ratified and must be ratified in this session of the Congress. Why? Because, as Senator Kerry and Secretary Clinton have pointed out, since December 5, last December 5, we’ve had no boots on the ground to inform us of what, in fact, is occurring with regard to the nuclear weapons of Russia.
This is very serious. In my office, we have a scorecard that says at the beginning of the so-called Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, there were 13,300 (Russian) nuclear warheads aimed at us, our cities, our military installations, everything we have – 13,300. I’ve stated frequently to my constituents any one of those warheads could obliterate the city of Indianapolis and there are thousands still there. The American public might have forgotten about it. The senators may have forgotten about it. We are deeply concerned about North Korea and Iran and other programs in which there are maybe one, two, five, 20. But we’re talking about thousands of warheads that are still there, an existential problem for our country. To temporize at this point I think is inexcusable.
Now I have supported the modernization of our nuclears. I’ve supported all the efforts of the President, Senator Kerry, and to work with others in the Republican Party essentially, but we are at a point where we are unlikely to have either the treaty or modernization unless we get real. That’s the point of our meeting today, and I appreciate the Secretary (Clinton) sharing so vividly her impressions of indefatigable travel. I appreciate the chairman’s (Senator John Kerry) patience through the hearings, through negotiations. We thank each one of you for helping us share this with the American people.
(The world can be thankful that at least one Republican, and one of Senator Lugar's stature, is breaking ranks with the rest of his Republican colleagues on this issue, and standing alone, in support of President Obama's efforts to get this treaty passed in this session of Congress.)
from the United States Mission to the United Nations website, November 3, 2010
Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance

Fact Sheet
November 3, 2010
Treaty Makes America More Secure, Has Broad Support, and Is Urgently Needed
The New START Treaty Makes America More Secure. Significantly reducing – by nearly 700 – the limit on the number of strategic nuclear weapons that Russia can deploy;
allowing us to keep a close eye on the remaining ones; building stability, predictability, and transparency for the two countries with 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons; and strengthening America’s fight against nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states.
Urgently Needed. Secretary of Defense Gates has said, “Since the expiration of the old START Treaty in December 2009, the U.S. has had none of these [verification] safeguards,” including no U.S. inspectors on the ground in Russia keeping a watchful eye on Russia’s weapons. General Chilton, Commander of STRATCOM, stressed to Congress, “Without New START, we would rapidly lose insight into Russian strategic nuclear force developments and activities.”
Key Questions Have Been Answered.
Preserves America’s Triad of land-based and sea-based missiles and bombers and the military’s flexibility to take on any future new threats
No constraints on deploying the most effective missile defenses possible nor on developing and deploying conventional prompt global strike capabilities
Effective verification and inspection systems leaving Russia unable to achieve militarily significant cheating or breakout
More than $80 billion over the next ten years – including $10 billion in new money – to modernize our nuclear weapons complex
Wide Bipartisan Support. America’s most respected national security leaders, including secretaries of defense and state, and national security advisers for Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, support ratification – including George Shultz, James Baker, Sam Nunn, James Schlesinger, Bill Perry, Chuck Hagel, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton, Harold Brown, Madeleine Albright, Howard Baker, Frank Carlucci, Kenneth Duberstein, Brent Scowcroft, and Stephen Hadley.
Unanimous Support by Military Leadership. All senior Defense Department officials testified that they support ratification of New START. Secretary Gates stressed: “The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America’s military leadership – to include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, the organization responsible for our strategic nuclear deterrent”. Seven former commanders of Strategic Command support the Treaty, assessing it “will enhance American national security in several important ways.”
Prepared and Ready. The Senate has been provided extensive information – 18 hearings, dozens of briefings and meetings, answers to over 900 questions for the record, and hundreds of pages of reports, analysis and testimony.


Memo to Jon Kyle and Republican Senators who oppose passage of this treaty in this session of Congress:
Making the world safer, Sir, is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. It is a global issue. Blocking passage of this treaty at this time is, in a word, simply IRRESPONSIBLE.
The Republican party was not given a mandate to block passage of this treaty, in the election just held in early November. The Republican leadership in the Senate is, apparently, rigid and unmoving in its opposition to this treaty and should that actually occur, that is that the Senate either votes it down, or refuses to vote, during the current session, prior to the last day of sitting in December, 2010, then the people of all countries, including both the United States and Russia, whose leaders reached the agreement in good faith, will be rendered impotent in their own defence, and the blood of that impotence will be covering the hands of the Republican Senators, save and except Senator Lugar.
The Republican Party's stated objective "to make President Obama a one term president" must not encompass the passage of this treaty. Should you succeed in your efforts, the world will hold you and your colleagues responsible, at the next election, and for decades to come.
UPDATE, January 28, 2011
In the end the Republicans, or at least enough of them, voted with the Democrats, to pass the Treaty, and thereby reduce the threat of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists, or states verging on failure who might seek to acquire such weapons.

Bury the AXE; find the MENTOR...in the office

By Wallace Immem, "The Art of Wielding the Axe at the office, Globe and Mail, November 18, 2010
For new leaders, it’s essential to closely examine your management group and cull those who could undermine both your performance and that of your company, leadership mentor Jim Murray advises. Here are the “red flag” traits of those who could be trouble:

Sycophants: These servile flatterers will tell you what you want to hear and applaud your poor decisions, creating blind spots and distracting you from issues that need attention.
Freeloaders: People who consider themselves “key executives” who don’t need to (or can’t) carry their weight on the team or make necessary tough decisions.
Deal makers: These care more about their success than yours or that of the organization, and form alliances with other members of the executive team that they use to their own advantage.
Filters: They want to act as gatekeepers who don’t communicate what they gather and inadvertently insulate you from the pulse of your company.
Frenemies: While outwardly friendly, their purpose is to undermine or usurp your authority. These self-promoters show little remorse when cornered.
Another list of "red flags" about the people a new leader finds in his leadership team...about whom to beware!
And there is not a single word in the list about any of these specific "pictures" that demonstrates any positive contribution being made by them. So, one can only assume that people in executive leadership positions are being taught to "weed out" those unwanted, and given the normal course of events in any organization, all of us, at one time or another, would be able to be "designated" as fitting one or more of the negative labels.
If this is the "going in" attitude of the new leader, there is no doubt that s/he is going to find all of the above "negative" work models. As they say in quantum physics, the experimenter brings a considerable degree of influence to the experiment, just by conducting the experiment.
In this case, the experimenter is the new executive, and if the mind set of red flags is the one that sets the mind-set of the new leadership, then all of the existing leadership team will resist.
When are the management people going to get it that negative leadership brings negative followership.
Negative leadership brings negative productivity. Suspicion breeds cynicism and even contempt, just as does too much famliarity. And top-down suspicion breeds bottom-up "red flags".
Whenever I listen to executives talk about "red flags" I ask, "When did you go looking for those who, while they may occasionally revert to something akin to a "red flag," yet are nevertheless providing considerable leadership to their own team, and producing effectively for the organization.?
Since when did vinegar attract more positive behaviour and attitude than honey?
Since when did the club of the CEO  include and impose a mandate on the CEO to see people primarily in a negative light?
Since when did the concept of the "human side of the enterprise" become primarily a "negative cost" while the technological and "non-human" side of the enterprise become primatily a "positive contributor" to the operation?
All leadership and management texts, by the best authors, have for decades wrestled with the "accounting" definitions of costs and benefits to an organization, and in the last two decades, the balance has shifted away from considering the human contribution as a positive first, and working with how to make it better.
While there were abuses when the equation was more equitably balanced, the abuses and the abusers have shifted to the CEO offices, in the name of protecting the reputation of the new leader, whose primary objective is to make and keep the investors happy...And recessions breed more of the worst kind of management approaches.
And in so doing, the CEO becomes, to one or more of those investors, one or more of those very red flags that s/he wants removed from the organization. And the hypocrisy grows!
Let's get real about how we see people, ourselves included!
If we start from a negative perception of the "red flags" as our most dangerous and therefore our most ready for "the axe," we are subjecting our organization to the most debilitating and the most hateful and the most anal of diagnoses.
Just imagine if teachers were to start with such a list of "red flags" in their approach to their classrooms. Just imagine if the principals were to start with a list of "red flags" in their approach to their faculty and on up the line. The system would be infected by a cancer the residue of which would not only kill the hope of the organziation's improvement in the short run, but it would render the organzation ineffective for decades.
As a very imperfect human being, working with other very imperfect human beings, I still want to do a "more than average job;" in fact I want to bring my A game to work every day. I take pride in that approach. However, if I find that the mentality of the leadership is one of finding and removing those who fit the "red flags" I will be the first to withdraw my co-operation. I will have been taught "not to trust" the leadership.
I will watch how the leadership "schmoozes" the others in the leadership team, and I will resist such an approach, no matter how effective my contribution may have been, nor how much I  might like to remain.
Being appalled at the hypocrisy and the arrogance and the mentality that states and operates on the belief that "red flags" are the most significant negative aspect of the team, needing to be removed, so that the "new broom" gets and maintains a platinum reputation is to place that organization under the axe of preserving that person's reputation, as its primary goal. And such a primary goal is not sustainable in the short, medium or long run. The organzation does not exist for the purpose of "polishing" the reputation of the CEO.
Why not start with a mandate to "grow" all of the people in the organization, and put the axe in the museum where it belongs along with the strap in the classroom, and the bullet or the noose for the hardest criminal?
Let's put a legacy of mutual human growth into the lexicon of leaders, even in the for-profit organizations.
That's a culture change of which all participants can be proud, including investors, CEO's and all of the members of the leadership team! And I'll put money on such an organization being "profitable" in all of the various measurements of that word.

Yawn! Another "landmark report" to eliminate poverty in Canada

By Laurie Monsebraaten, Toronto Star, November 17, 2010
Ottawa needs a comprehensive plan and dedicated funding to ease the plight of 3.1 million Canadians living in poverty, including more than 600,000 children and 700,000 working poor households, says a landmark parliamentary report.
The 300-page report, tabled in the House of Commons Wednesday, calls on Ottawa to start work immediately on a federal poverty reduction plan in consultation with provinces, municipalities and Aboriginal governments.
Key recommendations of the report by the Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development include:
• A new federal transfer fund to support provincial poverty reduction initiatives;
• Increasing the Canada Child Tax Benefit and Supplement to $5,000 from the current $3,436 within five years;
• A long-term national housing and homelessness strategy;
• Measures to help the most vulnerable including a refundable Disability Tax Credit, improved Employment Insurance; improvements to the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors; and a national child care program;
• More funding for Aboriginal housing, education and social services.
The committee defined poverty as Statistics Canada’s after-tax Low Income Cut-Off, which in 2008 was $34,738 for a family four in a city the size of Toronto.
As a measure of the disconnect between the facts on the ground and the political perspective in the wheelhouse of government, this "landmark report" once again demonstrates that this country has never lacked for ideas; it is however, almost completely lacking, historically, in the capacity to take appropriate action on such a significant social policy.
Ten percent of Canadians living at or below the poverty line, including 600,000 children and 700,000 working poor, continues to be a national disgrace.
There are anti-poverty NGO's across the country, including all of the food banks, who provide food for the poor, and there are multiple social service groups, like service clubs and churches, who continue to assist, especially in the time of a catastrophe like a fire, a robbery, a family tragedy.
However, it is the "under-the-radar" continuing throb and pulse of the desperate lives who somehow make do, with very little, in all of our communities, that makes sentient Canadians squirm. And it should!
Never forget, either, that in 1979, the then leader of the NDP, Ed Broadent, introduced into the House a private members bill to eliminate child poverty by 2000, and watched as a unanimous vote carried the bill.
And then.....absolutely nothing was ever done about it!
That really sums up the size and political strength of the voice of the voiceless, in the Canadian political narrative. Not a single parliamentarian, not a single political party, neither the house nor the Senate, both filled with honourable men and women, DID anything. And the numbers in need continued to grow.
Conequently, what is there in our national narrative since that time that would give us confidence that this report would generate any more initiative than these familes received thirty years ago?
"Landmark reports" tend to wax and wane on the shelves of the parliamentary archives, under the dust of basement heating ducts, open to those wishing to do research, but unlikely to provoke action from a parliament especially a minority one, and especially in times of economic belt-tightening, as we now experience.
Am I sceptical about the potential for movement on this report? Yes.
Am I cynical about the potential for movement on this report? Yes.
Am I angry about Canada's history on this file, for the last fifty years or more? Certainly.
Do I believe that these words will reach and change the minds of any parliamentarians, in this cycle? No.
Do I believe that the world's poor, growing rapidly and exponentially, around the world, will remain silent and "out-ofsight-out-of-mind" for much longer? No!
This crisis confronts each and every village and hamlet across our country, and each and every village and hamlet in every country, with numbers that are staggering in nations much less wealthy than our's.
So here is another problem begging ACTION from individuals, from organizations, from provinces and countries like our own, and from the global community.
And if Canada does not take action to eliminate this scourge, what hope is there for those hungry, homeless and hopeless in other countries? $34,000 would be a winfall in many of those countries, for a family of four.
And the arguments FOR taking action far outweigh those against. Reduced crime, reduced social intervention costs, reduced health costs, enhanced productivity and tax revenue, enhanced community self-respect, enhanced hope for teachers, social workers, clergy, law-enforcement agencies, courts and more people willing to contribute in the next generation. This is certainly not rocket science, intellectually. But it will take a rocket being ignited under the comfortable chairs of parliamentarians of all stripes and colours, to make it happen.

Obama: Bold Enough?

By Roger Cohen, New York Times Opinion Pages, November 1, 2010
Obama is confronting an international conviction that he’s hesitant. The agonizing review that led to the Afghan surge left an impression of uncertainty. In the end we got what some have called the Groucho Marx Hello, I Must be Going! plan, a brief reinforcement to be reversed in time for the 2012 campaign. In the Middle East, too, domestic politics have trumped change, with resulting equivocation and familiar paralysis.

Boldness characterized Obama’s campaign; only that will get him re-elected in 2012. He needs to invigorate his team with doers rather than thinkers. He needs to become serious about balancing the budget. He needs a foreign policy that reflects a changed world not a churlish Congress.
And he must admit to himself that perhaps the disappointed are not misguided but rational, even scientific — words he likes.
Boldness, "man-up," clear signs of decisiveness....these are all necessary qualities in a political leader, especially one from the acknowledged leader in geopolitics. Pandering to a "churlish congress" will help no country, least of all the U.S.  And there is not doubt that Obama faces a churlish congress, not to mention a churlish electorate in his own country.
However, as Mr. Cohen knows well, there is a significant difference between campaigning, without restraint to inhibit saying what one knows the audience wants to hear and passing real bills through both houses of the congress.
It is true that the "left" wing of the Democractic party is disappointed in the Health Reform Act that was passed without a public option.
It is also true that the "left" is disappointed that Obama raised the ante by providing 30,000 addtional troops for Afghanistan.
It is also true that the Democrats would have passed more helpful legislation to assist the unemployed, but for the Republican "obstructionism."
Nevertheless, taking a long view, the last two years will be seen as rather successful, dramatically altering the trajectory of the American social economic policy debate and the implications for the people. Although it will not take full effect until 2014, the Health Reform Act makes it unlawful for insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and mandates all children for coverage immediately.
The consumer protection legislation, while it did not go far enough to satisfy some "left" supporters of the president, did go a long way to reign in the Wall Street grizzlies, linked to the new agency charged with implementation of the legislation.
Did Obama want to do more? Yes.
Would Obama have done more with a more compliant or pliable Republican party? Yes.
Will the recent election inhibit the president even more? The jury is still out. We can only hope it wont.
On the foreign policy front will Obama be able to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks? He has the right people on his team, and if anyone can, they certainly can!
Did he end the combat mission in Iraq as he promised? Yes.
Will he end the combat mission in Afghanistan in 2011? The draw-down will begin...and who knows what will happen after that.
Does "bold" for Mr. Cohen include a readiness to attack Iran should that country refuse to stop its nuclear weapons program? I cannot read his mind; however, Obama will find himself in another of the many tight boxes he has faced, should he face that option in real time, with the Israeli's breathing down his neck ready to attack Iran, should he falter.

Needed: a law to limit drug side effects

Watching ABC News with Diane Sawyer, while a comprehensive package with insightful reporting, one is besieged by commercials for pharmaceutical products. And with each different item, no matter the target of its attack, arthritis, indigestion, sleeplessness, bad cholesterol, premature ageing....the formula for the copy is the same. Check with your doctor, and note the potential side effects. It is this last part of the message that is most disturbing.
One recent TV spot shouted the benefits of the antidepressant, seroquel, with one of the potential side effects, "it could result in death"....and even for this little mind, it was time to wake up!
Is it not time for legislators (most of whom in the U.S., of course, have been bought off by the pharmaceutical industry as well as by various other industries like insurance) to get serious about the minimal research that drug companies are required to conduct prior to the release of these drug onto the consumer market?
For example, could those legislators not require a cap on the nature of the potential side effects? For example, "No drug permitted for sale can possess the potential to injure or take the life of the consumer."
It seems that the Hippocratic Oath, which correctly directs doctors to "do no harm" is a minimum we can expect from those intent on producing chemical cocktails for our enhanced health.
Is it not time, also, for some enterprising scientist to conduct a study on the costs of "bad reactions" to the drugs that have already been permitted for sale on the open market? Or would such a study never receive the kind of funding it merits simply because the industry lobbyists would create such a political storm that the politicians would all run for cover and let the idea die before it saw the light of day?
How many class action law suits have been successfully prosecuted against the pharmaceutical industry, and how many lives have been seriously impaired or lost entirely, as a direct result of the ingestion of "bad chemistry"? And just how high are the costs of these injuries, the resulting medical and surgical interventions, not to mention the costs of the loss of life?
There is an old Latin phrase that seems appropriate for all potential medical patients...and that includes everyone....caveat emptor (buyer beware)! And it certainly applies to all purchases and consumption of all medicines.