Sorry it’s taken me a while to get back to you on this. I’ve been a bit busy lately.

My point was that from what I read of the WebMD article, Kellerman was just trying to provide information to individuals who are going to make health decisions for themselves. Health decisions can be very complicated and my understanding of the purpose of the WebMD site is to provide info to individuals making decisions.

The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.

But back to the original article that contained Kellerman’s comments. I didn’t get that Kellerman wanted to “wanted the government to block you from having” as Jonathan said in his post. They way I read it, Kellerman had two points:

1.) A downside of AEDs in the home is that it may delay a 911 call. And it’s not clear what is more likely to save lives… attempting to use the AED and delaying a 911 call or calling 911 immediately.

2.) Every time a family spends dollars on one thing, these are funds that are not being spent on something else. For a lot of people joining a health club or a smoking cessation group would be a better way to spend this money.

(article at:
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/92/101640.htm)

But as far as I could tell Kellerman was not arguing that AEDs be illegal. (Perhaps they might be available only by perscription if the FDA changes course. But a perscription is not much of an obstacle for someone who is at risk.) He was just offering his opinion on whether it made sense for individuals to choose to buy them. That’s the type of content that WebMD is known to provide — advice for individuals who are in the midst of health decisions. As they say, “WebMD provides valuable health information, tools for managing your health, and support to those who seek information.”

Let me know if I’m missing something here…

Anywhere moderate to large numbers of people congregate, a defibrillator should be available. I won’t be buying a defibrillator for myself or loved ones anytime soon, but I’d contribute to help buy a defibrillator for a local high school (for athletics), Little League, or church.

I can buy my father a membership on a gym, or a box of bran cereal, but I can’t make him excercise or eat right. But I can buy him an AED. An important distinction.

What a delight to read – Wheaties for the Brain!

Now on to Ginny and the Cole Kerfuffle.
Happy holidays, Steve

It is obviously better for people to eat better and exercise than to let their health slide and get implantable defibrillators, but how then do you justify Dick Cheney?

Typical Utilitarian thinking:

x results in z
y results in 100z

Since we “ought” to maximize results, regardless of individual need, it is therefore best that everyone employ y to achieve 100z.
—-
But, I agree with you here. It is not for Kellerman to recommend what we “ought” to do. This sort of flawed reasoning is outlined by Hume (Hume’s Law). Just because it “is” the case currently, doesn’t mean it “ought” to be so. You can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”.

I think I was just talking about something similar to this. Jonathon Gerwitz at Chicago Boyz give us Arthur Kellerman’s objections to home defibrillators.