The Cox-2 Inhibitor Dilemma
When the media got hold of the fact that the APPROVe study was terminated early due to negative results, they decide to make it the featured media event of the week. Armed with data showing that the risk of MIs (heart attacks) was greatly increased in patients using rofecoxib the media had a field day. Headlines blared forth about the percentage increase in risk and doomsayers brought forth conspiracy theories of corporate and FDA collusion. Missing from the discussion was a real down-to-earth analysis of what the numbers and results really meant.

Two different philosophies of life
This event has really brought to the forefront the fact that there are two opposing forces or philosophies that are using this issue and others like the Terry Shivao case to try and impose their will on the American public.
Side A:
In simplistic terms, Side A believes that with all our modern technology and scientific advances that life should be perfect, that there should be no bad outcomes to medical events. That anything less than perfection means that someone was at fault and should be held responsible. This group looks at the increased risk of MIs with these medications and immediately demands that they be removed from the market, that consumers be protected from this imperfection and that the company must be held responsible. They also believe that it's the government's duty to protect its citizens and to keep them free from all harm.
Side B:
Side B believes that we are far from perfection and that bad things sometimes happen to good people and that there is often no one at fault, no one to blame, bad things just sometimes happen. This group also believes that there is no such thing as totally risk free, everything has its good and bad effects and that what is important is that people be given the facts and allowed to make their own decision. This group believes it is the government's job to protect its citizens by keeping them informed about things that may harm them.

The key difference here is not in their thinking that the governments role is to help protect its citizens, (they both feel that) but in how the government should go about performing that duty. Side A be lives in strong government control. Side B believes in strong government dissemination of information but that the final decision makers should be the citizens themselves.

The Real Issue: The role of Government
The real issue here is should the government decided what you should and should not eat for breakfast or lunch, or what medication you should be allowed to take to help with your aliments or should the government be advising us on what is good or bad and should we be allowed to make up our own minds, make our own informed decisions. To someone in extreme chronic pain the risk of an increased chance of having a heart attack in the future may be well worth the relief in pain and the ability to live their daily lives in as normal a manner as possible. Why should the government have the right to tell you that you cannot use a medication that works for your problem. Maybe people with a high risk for heart disease will decide to stay away from the medication, maybe people on the medication will do other things to reduce their risk of heart disease. Shouldn't that be their decision or should that be the decision of government. The news media didn't really care about the impact of their reporting of peoples lives because if they did they would have been more balanced in the presentation of the information available. Instead the news media jumped on the most sensational aspects of the story, the parts that made the best headlines and drew the most attention and basically forgot that this was not really an issue about a single drug and its particular risk factors but about the rights of citizens to be properly informed and to make their own decisions.

The bottom line is that the eating habits of a large percentage of the population increases their risk of heart disease more than the use of Cox2 inhibitors like Vioxx does. Isn't it about time that things were put in perspective and that a rational discussion of facts take place.