Free speech shouldn’t be victim of health care reform

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.

2 Comments

  • 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.

  • 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 Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

%d bloggers like this: