[ErrantX]

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).

[cousin_it]

Nobody's endangering you. You're free to take only drugs approved by the newly private FDA Corp.

[ErrantX]

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.

[esspem]

You will decide it because of mark "FDA approved" (or any other drug testing agency you trust) on the drug.

[mikepurvis]

Can I interest you in some mortgage-backed securities from three years ago? They're AAA-rated!

[ErrantX]

And how do you trust those commercial, unregulated, agencies?

[jerf]

I measure "trust" by actions, not words. When you buy a product, you aren't just saying you trust it, you are trusting it. Trust is a verb, not a state of being.

Unless you are very unusual and are completely off the grid, you've probably solved the question of how you personally decide how to trust a wide variety of commercial agencies of highly varying degrees of regulation and highly varying degrees of life-threateningness. Possibly without realizing it. In theory it may be unsolvable, in practice it doesn't seem to be.

It should be pointed out that this isn't theoretical, either. People die because the FDA forces them to not take drugs, even when death is essentially assured in the short-term anyhow. It's a well-known problem. If the FDA was more advisory, I suspect it would be a net good. I really can't imagine people en masse running down to WalMart and buying Dangerousol (now with twice the danger!) any more than they manage to now. (Which you can't ignore either, the FDA is not perfect.)

[ErrantX]

I think ultimately it comes down to how much deregulation occured.

If you go all the way and the FDA was replaced with companies who offered to test and "approve" drugs for profit then I think it is difficult to establish a full trust relationship with those entities.

You mention the FDA becoming advisory; that could become a good compromise. However there is a danger that people would simply ignore the dangers and, at some point in the future, suddenly realise they had done something terrible to themselves :D

A balance is crucial; I think we actually have it in the drugs industry, but perhaps there is room to make modify as well...

[tedunangst]

Thalidomide didn't endanger the people who actually took it, but it wasn't exactly harmless either.

[nooneelse]

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.