Ban the FDA

[ACPlayer]

I suspect that the industry (as a whole) would rather have the FDA and be released of liability then get rid of the FDA and be exposed to unlimited liability.

For those old enough to remember thalidomide. That kind of liability would render many a CEO unable to make a decision.

Note that even with FDA approval adding layers of cumbersome paperwork and testing there are still dangerous items that slip through. The recent Guidant recall is an example

[ QUOTE ]
The medical device industry was shaken on June 17, 2005, when one of the leading Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator producers, Guidant Corporation of Indianapolis, Indiana, recalled several of its well known and highly distributed ICDs due to their propensity to develop wiring short circuits that can lead to failures of the mechanisms. What was most shocking, however, was that Guidant had known about the failures all along.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an anecdotal case effecting 30,000+ people suggesting too much laxity in the FDA. Corporations should however be expected to make haste as a bonus today is better than a bonus tomorrow.
Recall

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this belief that the drug industry is just itching to sell us stuff that will kill us

[/ QUOTE ]

They have a history

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this belief that the drug industry is just itching to sell us stuff that will kill us

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not gonna intentionally sell bottled poison that kills people instantly. But if they have a product which may be extremely profitbale, but it increases the risk of cancer by %50, they may sell it. Or they may just get careless and not test drugs adequately because they want to get a specfic drug on the market before their competitors. The argument that the freedom of information and the market will effectively protect consumers is flawed because the dangers of drugs are often in the very long run and difficult to pinpoint. If a car company makes a car that it explodes, it is obvious to consumers and the company's reputation will be destroyed. But what if a drug company produces a drug that, unbeknowst to anyone, significantly increases the risk of birth defects in children? It may take years for anyone to discover this link and hundreds of children could have been adversely affected by then.

And even if the court system works perfectly in punishing drug companies for negligence, it will only act as a deterrent if we assume that the drug companies are rational. But we know that in the real world companies face a lot of pressure to maximize short term profits, so they may gamble with a particular drug, hoping that it will score big for them in the short term and not cause long term adverse effects

[coffeecrazy1]

And, I have no problem with that. That's the power of free market and competitive pressure. If a company cannot afford a mistake, that is the best motivator for quality in any industry.

[lehighguy]

Banning the FDA would increase the number of lawsuits brought against them. Currently, passing FDA requirements basically gives you a free pass.

[lehighguy]

Corporations are so damn afraid of lawsuits. Do you really think they are going to be putting out a pleathora of dangerous drugs that they can be held liable for. How much do you think they will have to pay out per death.

[lehighguy]

Who do you think is going to take drugs that haven't been properly tested?

My guess is only the truly desperate patients with horrible conditions will seek out these drugs. My cousin is one of these people. She researchers the drugs herself, knows the risks, and accepts the consequences because the alternative is much worse.

If a company made a practice of testing drugs on people how long do you think they would last. Who the [censored] would buy drugs from a company that is known to sell unsafe and untested products. I mean how little credit do you give people. Any consumer that engages in such reckless practices should self select out of life anyway.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
How much do you think they will have to pay out per death.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have employees whose job descriptions are answering exactly that. Drug companies would love to be able to make those calculations unregulated.

-ptmusic

[lehighguy]

Yeah they do. The point is it's alot. They are not going to be releasing drugs that kill like 10% of the users. It would in no way be profitable. Moreover, they would NEVER be able to sell a drug on the market again. These drug companies have multi-decade time horizons on the developement of thier drugs. Are they really going to throw it all away.

As it stands people like my cousin have one choice, shut up and die. Without the drugs that is what happens. My cousin is willing to accept the 1% risk of side effects that might not meet the FDA standards because that improves here chances of survivial by 99%. Heck she'd be willing to accept a 50% chance of side effects. This is a choice she should be able to make.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
Corporations are so damn afraid of lawsuits. Do you really think they are going to be putting out a pleathora of dangerous drugs that they can be held liable for. How much do you think they will have to pay out per death.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, they may intentionally put out a drug despite the risks because they think that the court settlements will be less than the profit they make off of the drug.

Secondly, as I said earlier, the court system is only a detrrent against completely rational actors. And as poker players, we know that even smart rich people are quite capable of acting irrationally. Enron and Worldcom are also perfect examples. Just because there are negatives consequences for actions does not mean that people will take into account those negative consequences. This is especially true for corporations because the people who make decisions at corporations come and go. If someone only plans on being CEO of a corporation for 5 years, do you think they will really take into account what will happen to the corporation 15 years down the road when the negative effects of a drug are discovered?

I'm not saying that the FDA is doing a good job. Maybe there is too much red tape and drugs should be put on the market more quickly. All I'm saying is that no regulation is not the answer. Smart regulation is.