My silence on Avastin

As Paul Hsieh, Tom Bowden, and others have written about, the FDA recently pulled its approval for Avastin, a drug that has effects in many types of cancer, as a treatment for breast cancer. This decision has huge implications for the government's ability to control your medical care. So why haven't I said a word about it?

Avastin is marketed by Genentech, which is a major client of both the advertising agency I work for and its parent agency. Suppose I criticize the FDA for its decision. Suppose the FDA thinks my clients put me up to it. The FDA could take legal action against Genentech -- for words I say as a private citizen. Yes, it's 100% possible. After all, this is the same agency that thinks doctors can't be trusted to make decisions based on their medical judgment if pharma companies give them gifts like laser pointers and pens -- and that's how PhRMA, the industry trade association, got pressured into "voluntarily" disallowing such gifts by its member companies.

It's one thing for my clients or my employer, without government coercion, to say, "We do not want anyone who works for us to comment publicly on our products outside of the workplace." In that case, I am being offered a value (employment and the commensurate salary) with conditions attached. I am free to accept the conditions or to walk away if I don't wish to accept them. That's called a trade.

But when the government says, "We will punish you for anything you say about drugs that we don't agree with," I am not being offered any kind of value in return for my silence. That's not a trade. That is a violation of rights at gunpoint.

So, no. I'm not giving anyone my opinion about the Avastin situation...but the fact that I'm not giving it says something very loudly about the level of government intrusion in health care.