Speaking of government regulation of drugs, Paul Hsieh, M.D. has a great PJM piece (“America’s Other Drug Problem”) in which he points out that the maniacal bureacrats at the FDA are preventing Americans from getting the life-saving drugs, and thwarting their ability to get the health care they need.
Melly Alazraki of Daily Finance reports that the shortages include “vital medications such as chemotherapy, antibiotics, analgesics (painkillers), anesthetics and more.” ABC News details how Minnesota cancer patient Mark McKee was suddenly told at a scheduled chemotherapy session that the hospital did not have enough of the critical medication doxorubicin for his prescribed treatment. Despite the fact that his tumor had grown recently, his doctors told him he had to settle for a significantly reduced dose and hope that “something may be better than nothing.”
As happens with giant bureacracies, the FDA has gotten more and more unreasonable over time, and if its current standards were applied to wonder drugs from the past, they would never be allowed:
The FDA drug approval process is so onerous that many experts believe that certain drugs currently in widespread use would never have been approved by today’s FDA — including penicillin, aspirin, and acetaminophen (Tylenol). In 2010, the FDA approved a mere 21 drugs — what the Wall Street Journal calls “a relatively modest figure” and a continuation of the “drought in recent years.”
While aware of this problem, the Obama administration is proposing to add another level of bureaucracy.
But many scientific and industry experts are deeply skeptical that this new program will succeed.
Is anyone surprised by their skepticism?
I like the approach John Stossel has proposed: simply abolish the damned FDA.
There’s no reason to think that a government agency would be better at picking pharmaceutical winners and losers than a private company that has its own money on the line and is motivated to earn a profit. Rather than creating yet another bureaucracy to “encourage” the development of drugs the government deems worthy, the government should consider a radical alternative. It should reduce the regulatory burdens on the pharmaceutical industry by phasing out — and eventually abolishing — the FDA.
John Stossel and others have explained how abolishing the FDA and allowing private rating agencies to monitor the safety and effectiveness of drugs would better protect consumers against unsafe products.
Private ratings agencies already work superbly in other industries. The private Underwriters Laboratories (UL) tests and approves numerous products ranging from hair dryers to Christmas lights to bulletproof glass. Manufacturers gladly pay for their testing and certification because many retailers won’t stock products without the UL seal of approval.
Not that it matters to anyone in the government (or to the more powerful people with degrees in Telling Everyone What To Do Public Policy), but exactly where did the founders grant the federal government power to determine what medicines we should be allowed to buy?
This situation calls for more middle class anarchy.
Get the government out of the pharmaceutical business and leave it up to doctors and patients what drugs they want. Doctors and patients should be allowed to mutually agree upon whatever course of treatment they want, and absent force or fraud, their transactions are no more the government’s business than what two adults do in their bedroom.
Comments
4 responses to “Protected to death by the FDA”
A mostly agree with John Stossel – but wy not just turn the FDA into an UL – take away all of their regulatory power – and funding. Same with some of the other federal agencies.
In fact, we should take regulatory power away from all agencies. Period. Make congress pass specific rules if they want specific rules.
I’d go one further and eliminate the legal requirement of petitioning a doctor’s permission to purchase pharmaceuticals. That step was the beginning of “drug control” and the subsequent wars on vice that have made individual liberty via limited government a footnote in American history.
Saw Brett’s comment earlier. Had to go away and think about it.
I agree on most drugs (especially the ones that get used as recreational). BUT some drugs really NEED to be taken under medical supervision. Drugs that HAVE side effects (on everyone) and need dosages monitored, etc. (I’d add antibiotics because of bacterial immunities – but physician supervision doesn’t seem stop people from stopping antibiotics too early – not sure how to fix that one.)
On the gripping hand, my libertarian side really HATES the idea of restricting anything people can do to themselves. So… even after thinking about it, I’m still waffling. Sorry – I guess I’m human.
“While aware of this problem, the Obama administration is proposing to add another level of bureaucracy”
This is how I feel about the whole healthcare bill last year. No real reform, just more bureaucracy and levels, but with extra handouts to large corps and the AMA. You can’t reform when you think the average american so stupid that they can’t make informed decisions, you just decide not to bother informing them and decide for them.
Every left-leaning person I know, when I talked about John Mackey’s article, said “the schlubs are too dumb and trusting, we have to make decisions for them”