this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2026
360 points (98.9% liked)

Canada

12084 readers
703 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The two aren't comparable. You really want Doug Ford to decide what and who can be eligible for what treatments, only to have it overturned by the next premier?

Unelected, nonpartisan bureaucracy is what prevents those swings.

But you're not wrong - Ford is smothering healthcare, as seen by the hospitals struggling with finances right now. Its a problematic sign if most of the major hospitals are all struggling at the same time. Less funds mean poorer service and less availability, and that part is directly driven by politics in the longrun.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You really want Doug Ford to decide what and who can be eligible for what treatments, only to have it overturned by the next premier?

No, the total opposite. I think the government regulation of medicine should be limited to ensuring a drug’s safety, but not efficacy. This was the regime we had decades ago that gave us some of the most useful medications we still have, such as NSAIDs, antibiotics, and many vaccines.

Let me, an individual, decide (along with my doctor) which drugs I should or shouldn’t be taking.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

but not efficacy

that's how you get snake oil

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

you make an adulterous and valid point. godsdamn curing ourselves by poisoning ourselves to death.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Actually, I was referring to how efficacy is not part of the evaluation criteria for chemo drugs.

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-effective-is-chemotherapy/

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Oh that's a better point. Thanks dude. Any opportunity to learn.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Plenty of that out there already, see the supplements category.

What removal of efficacy requirements does in reality is open the door to a lot more off label use.