One of my favorite times to write is late at night when the house is quite. Actually it is a habit. While working at the U.S. Attorney's Office most nights I had to stay up and work after everyone else at my house had gone to bed. Deadlines come fast and furious in the federal government's legal world. Long hours are the norm. Attorneys do their best not to miss deadlines for a number of reasons--there are the ethical reasons--sanctions from the court, causing your side to lose, etc. As AUSA(Assistant United States Attorneys) there was another reason. When you are sworn in as an AUSA you take an oath of office--this is after all the background checks and security clearances-deeming you worthy of these positions. The oath is a pledge that you will represent and defend the United States of America. Most AUSAs, if not all, take this oath extremely serious. After all isn't it extremely serious to represent and defend one's country. Does that, however, make one pro-government? I suppose that depends on what one means by the use of the word pro-government? Does pro-government always mean that you believe in more, bigger government? No. It does not. Pro-government can also mean you believe in your government--the United States of America-and that you will represent and defend it as necessary.
At times as an AUSA you might be asked to defend a law that you personally did not believe in. That was the job you were paid to do. A lot of times you are required to advocate a position that is not your personal belief, but again that is what you are required to do even when you thought it made you look disingenuous.
Likewise, does anti-government mean you hate government of any kind? Does it mean you prefer state government over the federal government to regulate certain areas? Does it mean government can be big as long as it is state government doing the regulating and not the federal government? Again, I think different people have different ideas of what these terms mean. I know I have been labeled by some as pro-government because I spent a great part of my legal career representing the United States of America and defending the Constitution and the rights it provides. I took my job very, very seriously as an AUSA, and I tried to honor the oath I swore to, I also represented the great state of Oklahoma as an Assistant Attorney General and took an oath there also. People don't seem to focus on that job. Does that job make me pro-state government? How do you mesh the two and come up with the right label for me if you are simply basing it on where I worked and nothing else? Is it really fair to label me at all simply because I have a background in federal and state jurisdiction and understand the legal ins and outs and some of the legal challenges of both?
There are both sound arguments for and against the FDA taking over all or a bigger part of regulating compounding. Similarly, there are sound arguments for and against the states continuing to regulate compounding. APhA's position announced on the blog earlier today was refreshing. It was refreshing to see thatAPhA's is considering options even though it involves change. It is refreshing that APhA wishes to continue the dialogue with the FDA and work to find the best solution.
The point of this blog is and always has been to educate, inform and open up the dialogue regarding issues in the compounding world. Is this blog meant to be negative toward compounding? Absolutely not, but it is meant to present multiple sides and views. The recent events of NECC have caused a negative spin on compounding. That may be unfortunate, but it is the reality. On a recent post when I asked readers to comment on the positive of compounding, I got no responses despite the post being well read. I still welcome any and all positive stories that readers want to share about compounding.
I hope that others will be open to new ideas and solutions to make the compounding world a better safer place no matter who ultimately is in charge of regulating it.
At times as an AUSA you might be asked to defend a law that you personally did not believe in. That was the job you were paid to do. A lot of times you are required to advocate a position that is not your personal belief, but again that is what you are required to do even when you thought it made you look disingenuous.
Likewise, does anti-government mean you hate government of any kind? Does it mean you prefer state government over the federal government to regulate certain areas? Does it mean government can be big as long as it is state government doing the regulating and not the federal government? Again, I think different people have different ideas of what these terms mean. I know I have been labeled by some as pro-government because I spent a great part of my legal career representing the United States of America and defending the Constitution and the rights it provides. I took my job very, very seriously as an AUSA, and I tried to honor the oath I swore to, I also represented the great state of Oklahoma as an Assistant Attorney General and took an oath there also. People don't seem to focus on that job. Does that job make me pro-state government? How do you mesh the two and come up with the right label for me if you are simply basing it on where I worked and nothing else? Is it really fair to label me at all simply because I have a background in federal and state jurisdiction and understand the legal ins and outs and some of the legal challenges of both?
There are both sound arguments for and against the FDA taking over all or a bigger part of regulating compounding. Similarly, there are sound arguments for and against the states continuing to regulate compounding. APhA's position announced on the blog earlier today was refreshing. It was refreshing to see thatAPhA's is considering options even though it involves change. It is refreshing that APhA wishes to continue the dialogue with the FDA and work to find the best solution.
The point of this blog is and always has been to educate, inform and open up the dialogue regarding issues in the compounding world. Is this blog meant to be negative toward compounding? Absolutely not, but it is meant to present multiple sides and views. The recent events of NECC have caused a negative spin on compounding. That may be unfortunate, but it is the reality. On a recent post when I asked readers to comment on the positive of compounding, I got no responses despite the post being well read. I still welcome any and all positive stories that readers want to share about compounding.
I hope that others will be open to new ideas and solutions to make the compounding world a better safer place no matter who ultimately is in charge of regulating it.
2 comments:
You have done a great job of presenting the information that is on the web. One should not fault you if they do not like the information that is available. For those who wish there were more positive articles on the web regarding compounding, I suggest they get busy and do some writing.
Readers can also feel free to send me links to or article about any positive compounding articles they would like to see posted on the blog.
Post a Comment