Boston Legal -- Circumventing the FDA
Summary
TLDRIn this courtroom scene, a defense attorney passionately challenges the FDA's inefficacy, arguing that doctors frequently prescribe drugs for off-label uses without FDA approval. He cites a real-life case of a medication prescribed to save a patient's life, highlighting the long wait for FDA approval. The attorney also shares his personal struggle with memory loss, discussing his use of an unapproved drug to recover his cognitive abilities. He insists that no government agency should prevent desperate individuals from seeking treatments that improve or save lives.
Takeaways
- ⚖️ The speaker is frustrated with being sidelined in court and demands a chance to contribute.
- 🎭 The speaker criticizes the opposing legal team for trivializing the case by turning it into a comedic routine.
- 💊 The speaker argues that doctors regularly prescribe medications for uses not approved by the FDA, citing examples like aspirin and beta blockers.
- 📉 The speaker points out that the FDA has failed to test drugs for all possible uses, highlighting inefficiencies in the approval process.
- 📢 A former FDA drug reviewer testified before Congress, stating that the FDA is incapable of protecting Americans from unsafe drugs.
- 🚨 The speaker claims that the country is facing the greatest drug safety crisis in history, according to FDA testimony.
- 🩺 The speaker defends a doctor’s decision to prescribe life-saving medication without waiting for FDA approval due to the urgency of life-or-death situations.
- 🧠 The speaker shares a personal experience about being at risk for Alzheimer’s and using a drug, dextroamphetamine, to regain memory and cognitive function.
- 🚫 The speaker strongly opposes any government or court authority preventing him from accessing medication that helps him recover his brain functions.
- 😟 The speaker acknowledges that desperate people may take desperate measures, but emphasizes that it’s a justified action when facing severe health risks.
Q & A
What argument does the speaker make regarding FDA approval for medications?
-The speaker argues that doctors often prescribe medications for uses the FDA has not approved, such as aspirin for heart attacks and beta blockers for migraines. He implies that waiting for FDA approval can delay life-saving treatments.
What is the significance of David Graham's testimony mentioned in the script?
-David Graham, a drug reviewer with the FDA, testified before Congress that the FDA is 'virtually incapable' of protecting Americans from unsafe drugs, highlighting the agency's dysfunction and suggesting that relying on the FDA may not always ensure safety.
What examples are given of medications prescribed without FDA approval for specific uses?
-Examples include aspirin for preventing heart attacks, beta blockers for migraines, anti-convulsants for pain and bipolar disorders, antidepressants for insomnia, and steroids for cancer.
What is the speaker's overall critique of the FDA in this argument?
-The speaker criticizes the FDA as being slow and ineffective, suggesting that it cannot protect patients from unsafe drugs and that waiting for its approval in life-or-death situations is unreasonable.
How does the speaker relate his personal experience to the argument about medication?
-The speaker shares that he is at risk for Alzheimer’s and has been taking dextroamphetamine to regain his memory. He argues that no government agency, including the FDA, should prevent him from accessing a drug that helps him recover his cognitive function.
What is the rhetorical strategy used when the speaker mentions taking dextroamphetamine?
-The speaker uses a personal anecdote to evoke empathy and to strengthen his argument that individuals have the right to use medications that improve their quality of life, regardless of FDA approval.
What is the significance of the reference to 'desperate people will try desperate measures' in the script?
-The speaker acknowledges the prosecutor’s point that desperate individuals may resort to risky actions, but he argues that in situations of life or death, taking those measures is sometimes necessary and justifiable.
What is the speaker's stance on the role of the court or government in personal medical decisions?
-The speaker strongly believes that the court or government should not have the authority to deny someone access to medications that could potentially save or improve their life, particularly in cases of severe medical conditions.
How does the speaker emphasize the urgency of medical treatment?
-The speaker repeatedly frames the situation as 'life or death' to emphasize the urgency and necessity of immediate action, criticizing the slow bureaucratic processes that could result in preventable loss of life.
What is the purpose of the objection raised in the middle of the speaker's argument?
-The objection challenges the speaker’s attempt to trivialize the case through humor (described as an 'Abbott and Costello routine'), indicating that the opposing counsel feels the speaker is not treating the severity of the case seriously.
Outlines
⚖️ Objection and Courtroom Drama
The speaker expresses frustration in the courtroom, feeling sidelined despite being first chair. They argue that their opponents are treating the case too lightly, comparing it to a comedic routine. They accuse their opposition of undermining the seriousness of the case, calling it an insult to the court. The judge responds that the court is not amused, signaling the gravity of the situation.
💊 The FDA Approval Debate
The speaker challenges the emphasis on FDA approval, arguing that doctors often prescribe medications for uses that the FDA has not approved. They cite examples like aspirin, beta blockers, anti-convulsants, and antidepressants, which have been used for unapproved treatments. The speaker criticizes the FDA, pointing out that one of its own drug reviewers testified that the agency is 'virtually incapable' of protecting Americans from unsafe drugs. The speaker calls attention to the broken state of the FDA, raising concerns about its effectiveness in protecting patients.
🚨 Drug Safety Catastrophe
The speaker continues to criticize the FDA, mentioning that a drug reviewer recently testified before Congress that the country is facing 'the single greatest drug safety catastrophe in history.' The speaker uses this to justify their client's decision to prescribe an unapproved medication, arguing that it was a matter of life and death. They emphasize that the doctor could not afford to wait for a broken agency to approve a drug that could save a patient's life.
🧠 Personal Struggle with Alzheimer's Risk
The speaker reveals their personal battle with the risk of Alzheimer's, describing how they are experiencing memory loss and cognitive decline. They mention taking dextroamphetamine, a drug popular on the black market, to help restore their memory and mental function. The speaker passionately defends their right to take this medication, arguing that no government or agency should be able to prevent them from trying to regain their brain function. They draw parallels between their situation and the prosecutor's claim that desperate people will take desperate measures, suggesting that their actions are justified.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡FDA approval
💡Off-label use
💡Drug safety
💡Life or death
💡Desperate measures
💡Dextroamphetamine
💡Cognitive decline
💡Vioxx
💡Medical autonomy
💡Mental arithmetic
Highlights
The defense argues that doctors prescribe medications every day for uses the FDA never considered, citing examples like aspirin for heart attacks and beta blockers for migraines.
The defense emphasizes that the FDA is 'virtually incapable' of protecting America from unsafe drugs, as testified by David Graham, a drug reviewer with the FDA.
The defense questions the role of the FDA, stating that patients like Mr. Harrison are not being adequately protected by the agency.
The defense highlights the broken state of the FDA, describing it as ineffective in protecting patients and too slow in approving life-saving medications.
The defense draws attention to the real-life consequences of waiting years for FDA approval, especially in life-or-death situations.
The defense speaker reveals that they personally are at risk for Alzheimer's and have taken dextroamphetamine, a drug used off-label by students to enhance memory and focus.
The defense underscores that dextroamphetamine helps them regain cognitive abilities, such as memory, vocabulary, mental arithmetic, and facial recognition.
A key argument presented is that no government or agency should have the power to prevent someone from trying a drug that could restore their cognitive function or quality of life.
The defense acknowledges the prosecution's point about desperate people taking desperate measures but counters that it’s justifiable under dire circumstances.
The prosecution raises an objection, accusing the defense of trivializing the seriousness of the case with a humorous presentation, comparing it to an 'Abbott and Costello routine.'
The defense argues that it's unfair to penalize a doctor for choosing a drug that could potentially save a patient's life, despite the lack of FDA approval.
The defense cites that people in the country are getting prescriptions daily for treatments the FDA hasn’t officially signed off on, referencing the widespread use of drugs off-label.
The defense argues that the FDA’s broken processes are preventing doctors from providing necessary care in time-sensitive, life-threatening situations.
The defense highlights the testimony before Congress that the U.S. faces the greatest drug safety catastrophe in history due to FDA failings.
The argument that no court or government should be able to force someone to continue losing their mind, especially when viable treatments are available, resonates as a key emotional appeal.
Transcripts
i thought i was close i'm first chair
you got to ask all the questions
objection
your honor these two have tried to
trivialize the severity of this case
with their abbot and castello routine
but it's an insult to this court
your honor it's only fair i get to do
something here mr shore the court is
anything but amused
no i i i got it we'll split it
you go first fine
okay first this big deal about fda
approval doctors prescribe
medications every day for uses the fda
never considered aspirin for years has
been used
to prevent and treat heart attacks did
the fda ever test for that
no it was sanctioned only as a pain
reliever until recently beta blockers
are prescribed for migraines
with no fda approval we take
anti-convulsants for pain for bipolar
disorders
antidepressants for insomnia steroids
for cancer
people in this country are getting
prescriptions by the
thousands every day from their doctors
for treatments
the fda has never signed off on and what
about the fda
david graham a drug reviewer with the
agency just testified before congress
that the fda is i quote virtually
incapable
of protecting america from unsafe drugs
the fda is broken folks raise your hand
if you agree
except those of you on vioxxa objection
the fda's
own point man said to congress that we
are currently facing
the single greatest drug safety
catastrophe
in the history of the world so who then
is there
to protect the patient who is there to
protect mr harrison
his doctor
my client had a medication that could
save
his patients life he wasn't going to
wait
nine years for approval from a broken
ineffective agency this is life
or death for god's sake life
or death
uh
i'm at risk for alzheimer's i've got
some sort of
plaque going on inside my brain my
memory
i might have met some of you before i
wouldn't know
what you wouldn't know is what it feels
like to be
losing it to be filled
to be slipping
there's a prescription drug
dextroamphetamine
it's very big on the black market it's
um used by college kids to bone up for
exams
i've been taking it
i don't know how it works but you get
your memory back
it reintroduces you to your vocabulary
helps with
mental arithmetic facial recognition
overall productivity
basically you get your brain back
and no fta or any other agency is gonna
tell me i don't have the right to get
back my brain
no government or or court is gonna tell
me
order me to continue losing my mind
i agree with the prosecutor his claim
that
desperate people will try
desperate measures
so what
you
浏览更多相关视频
Nandrolone with TRT - Nandrolone for TRT and HRT HR - addition of deca to hrt
El Filibusterismo | Kabanata 13: Ang Klase sa Pisika #elfilibusterismo
Die Trying - The Battle For ALS Treatment (VICE on HBO: Season 4, Episode 16)
Umar Zameer’s lawyer: ‘We knew the truth’
Finasteride and Dutasteride for Male Pattern Hair Loss
Parkland Victim's Father Michael Schulman Gives Final Statement Before Shooter's Sentencing
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)