Asthma vs. Ozone
Most people know that the propellant that used to be in hairsprays has been banned because it destroys the ozone layer that protects the earth from the Sun's ultraviolet rays. But until very recently, that propellant WAS in most asthma inhalers. Now it is being removed, but this is allowing drug companies to make their drug patented again. So the result of saving the environment is to make this medication more expensive. Read more, then share your opinion.
7 comments:
Vidya 7546
This topic is quite dear to my heart in that I have severe asthma, and have ever since I was a child. Breathing is a very important part of one’s life, and inhalers are, to asthmatics, god’s gift in that it allows the breathing tubes to fully open again whenever an asthma attack is around the corner. I’ve been blessed in that buying inhalers from our local pharmacy won’t cost me that much because of Copay and insurance, but to those without these health benefits, one inhaler costs around $95. That’s expensive enough. I believe that though such inhalers are destroying the ozone layer, this hazard should have been brought to the forefront earlier. It is too dangerous to toy with the lives of asthmatics by making inhalers more expensive. The drug companies can try to work around this propellant, hoping to save the environment and the pocketbooks of asthmatics but making the medicine more expensive should definitely not be an option due to a mistake the pharmaceuticals made.
An article I found interesting: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/fact
sheets/ceh/asthma.htm
Loren Roberts 3875
Many of my friends have asthma and frequently use inhalers so I found this article to be quite interesting. Unlike hairspray, inhalers are taken into the body rather than sprayed onto a person's hair and into the atmosphere. So even though it might have CFC's not much is being released and depleting the ozone layer. It seems kind of ridiculous that they are increasing the price of inhalers because pharmaceuticals are now deciding they are harmful to the environment. They should compensate and charge the pharmaceutical companies more to purchase these inhalers, but not charge the asthma patient with extra fees just because they have the disease.
Another interesting article I found that provides a list of certain inhalers that contain these CFC's:
http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/
asthma/inhalersenviro.cfm
Lyndsay 3718
When I was reading this article, I realized it all made sense. A was diagnosed with asthma 2 years ago at the same time that I was diagnosed with mononeucleosis. I have exercised-enduced asthma, and being a swimmer, it is extremely difficult for me to exercise twenty plus hours a week and not use an inhaler.
The reason why I was saying it all made sense was because a couple months ago I asked my mother to fill my albuterol inhaler prescription (albuterol is usually the white inhaler). When she attended one of my swim meets to come and visit me, she came with a different inhaler, a red one. I asked her what the difference was and she said the pharmacist simply said is was the new and better version of albuterol.
After reading the article found here (http://www.pharmacist.com/articles/h_ts_0769.cfm), I realized that it all made sense. Albuterol has been banned because of the harmful chemicals in it and is currently being replaced by a new inhaler that does not "deplete the Ozone Layer and the U.S. Clean Air Act."
I think this is ridiculous in many ways to ban a substance using CFC's when there are millions of people all over the world that need to use these albuterol inhalers every day. Many people who are living on their own with asthma do not have the money to be able to afford a 39 dollar inhaler recharge every week or two. I know a kid who died from an asthma attack a few years ago, and if he were to have his inhaler with him, he would still be with us today. As horrible for the environment as it is, CFC's need to be permitted in inhalers until pharmaceutical companies are willing and able to provide this new formula to consumers at a price that is relatively less inexpensive than 39 dollars. Maybe something like 23 dollars would be more affordable though it is still too expensive.
http://www.radix.net/~mwg/asthma-gen.html
Stephen2068
Sami Cho
8219
After reading this article, I was very interested in learning about this topic. I don't have many friends that suffer from asthma, but I knew one friend that did have asthma. I know that the inhalers are a vital part of a person's life if they have asthma. By reading the article of inhalers rising in price, where some people with asthma won't be able to purchase it disheartens me. I'm not quite sure how much inhalers are, but to my guess, they would be quite expensive. I know the use of a different chemical besides CFC's will raise the price, but I think they should find a way to make inhalers cheap because risking a life of someone that shouldn't be taken lightly. I care about the ozone layer and the earth also, so someway scientists need to find a ways of protecting the earth and protecting the people living in it.
http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=16&cont=551#questions
I found this site that talks more about the situation of the CFC inhalers versus the new ones.
Leticia 1849
Once again the government finds ways of getting rid of the "unfit". With the change in price to 39 dollars for the replacement propellant (HFA-134a)in inhalers many people will not be able to afford such a product. The people that will not be able to afford it are the low-income population that most likely do not have insurance. The fact that this in turn may cause deaths to children with no access to this new product in the asthma market is heartbreaking. Its a give and take situation here because in the other hand if nothing changes our Earth's ozone can be affected leaving us with even greater effects in sunburn, skin cancer, etc. Overall, things need to change to save lives, but the government always knows which lives to save, doesn't? .
Related article: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/asthma/AN00443
Nicholas 9969
Obviously any business is going to try and capitalize when the government mandates they change their product. I highly doubt the board of trustees of any pharmaceutical company truly cares whether or not their product releases CFCs into the environment so long as their pockets are being properly lined. Let's face it, no matter how idealistic people claim to be, all decisions are essentially economic in nature. Develop a new product with millions of dependent users (i.e. asthmatics), get good publicity with some cheesy environmental awareness commercials, and laugh all the way to the bank. This couldn't possibly work out better for the industry, but they wouldn't want to let you know that.
Post a Comment