Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hugh3 5907 days ago
While the current FDA system may be overkill, do you really want the market flooded with new drugs whose effects aren't well understood?
2 comments

Do you really want the market flooded with new software, whose effects aren't well understood?

You can find effective software despite almost no government regulation, why do you think it won't work for drugs? I'm sure a lot of private rating agencies evolve in the such free market of drugs.

There's a lot of totally crappy software on the market. The key difference is that you can try a better application after getting burned by a bad one. Not necessarily so with drugs - they can do unrecoverable damage.
You can use only drugs approved by FDA, nothing would change for you in "no regulation" market.
I think this shift in policy would require an enormous cultural shift. Currently, our society mostly trusts the drugs available on our store shelves. A deregulated market would require consumers to be much more critical in order to continue to function.
software doesn't kill people
should i revise to iphones don't kill people?
Tell that to Toyota.
That depends on whether you prefer to die from taking an untested drug or die because the drug isn't invented yet. A severely ill person would probably prefer a chance of the former to the certainty of the latter. Also you have to account for the odds of both these events: which one do you think will happen more?
That's something of a straw man though. Because the vast majority of people taking drugs aren't dying. If new drugs created in the deregulated industry were only given to terminal cases as a last resort it might work; otherwise it is just endangering everyone else (taking drugs).
Nobody's endangering you. You're free to take only drugs approved by the newly private FDA Corp.
And how do you objectively decide which ones are safe and which have been tested sufficiently to your requirements?

As an individual deciding a drug is safe to use should not require you to read all the relevant research etc. - you need a safe, objective marker. i.e. law and regulation.

You will decide it because of mark "FDA approved" (or any other drug testing agency you trust) on the drug.
Can I interest you in some mortgage-backed securities from three years ago? They're AAA-rated!
And how do you trust those commercial, unregulated, agencies?
Thalidomide didn't endanger the people who actually took it, but it wasn't exactly harmless either.
Your mistaken presupposition: all drugs only ever impact just the person taking them, they are all completely metabolized into totally harmless chemicals in the first body they enter.
Quite right. My statement was based on my judgement that I (or perhaps other individuals less circumspect than myself) am more likely to die from an inadequately tested drug than from the lack of a drug which would have been invented in an FDAless free-for-all.

Or another scenario: maybe the drug to treat my disease has been invented, but nobody knows about it because it hasn't been properly tested and is competing with thirty other startup drugs (mostly useless, some harmful) which claim to treat the same disease. How is my doctor supposed to magically know which one to prescribe me?

Do not use inadequately tested drugs, buy only FDA approved drugs. Why do you want to forbid other people to buy drugs not approved by FDA?
The FDA also tests for effectiveness so if a drug isn't effective enough then it doesn't get through.