[dantheman]

You seem to discount the amount of people that are dying due to the slow development cycle of drugs. If there was regulation there would be more experimentation, perhaps more people would die from the effects of new drugs -- but you could choose to only use drugs that have been stable and well studied while those who have nothing left to lose could use medicine directly off the chemists work bench.

[lutorm]

There's a reason the Hippocratic Oath has "First, do no harm" in it. You don't go around experimenting on human subjects on the off chance that it might be good. The Nazis did that and it's not exactly been upheld as a standard to follow (though that was of course involuntary.) One can argue over the morals involved, but society generally doesn't accept the argument that killing individual people is justified by some uncertain potential to save others (except maybe when it comes to national security...)

[jazzdev]

society generally doesn't accept the argument that killing individual people is justified by some uncertain potential to save others

Isn't that what the FDA does? If you have fatal disease X you can apply to get into a drug trial. You can be denied (leading to your death). You could be accepted, but placed into the control group and given a placebo (and die).

People may die during the drug trial phase for the greater good of society learning if the drug is safe and/or effective. Maybe that's a good trade-off and maybe it's not, but we are trading lives for something we value more... knowledge.

I'm in favor of abolishing the FDA. But the biggest downside is that it might be impossible to determine if drugs were effective because very few sick people would volunteer for a drug trial where they might get put in the control group (and not get the drug).

[yummyfajitas]

Dantheman isn't advocating killing people. He is advocating allowing people to to voluntarily experiment on themselves.

Kind of like what the Nazis did, except without the violence.

[ErrantX]

> perhaps more people would die from the effects of new drugs

I'd argue this is almost certainly a given. But the problem is not those who die now - but those who are taken ill much later down the line. Ten years or whatever.

> but you could choose to only use drugs that have been stable and well studied while those who have nothing left to lose could use medicine directly off the chemists work bench.

I entirely agree with the sentiment there (it would be great to see the wider liberalisation and faster iteration of new drug trials for example). but (and I feel this is a big caveat) how do people decide which drug is stable and well studied. It is not necessarily sufficient to trust the pamphlet or advertising the company gives you.

I don't know. Maybe it is cynicism but I suspect that if drug research were deregulated the standard of drugs produced would decline rapidly.

And finally; I am not so sure drugs research would explode with innovation. We would get drugs to market faster, sure, but there is a standard of entry into drug research that still requires funding, education and resources.

[yummyfajitas]

Maybe it is cynicism but I suspect that if drug research were deregulated the standard of drugs produced would decline rapidly.

It probably would. But that is irrelevant - the relevant question is, "would consumers benefit?"

A hypothetical - imagine that government regulations forbid the sales of laptops weighing more than 4lb, having less than 8gb ram and a 500gb HD (roughly a $5,000 laptop). Eliminating this regulation would almost certainly result in lower quality laptops (read: bigger, less ram) being sold.

Would that be a bad thing?

[ErrantX]

> It probably would. But that is irrelevant - the relevant question is, "would consumers benefit?"

I see the point you're making. But it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Obviously there is no way to make 100% sure a drug is safe without tests lasting at least the average lifespan of a person (etc.). But I think we have a reasonable medium at the moment; some drugs have long term affects that slip through, but for now the benefit is tipped in favour of "consumers"

With deregulation I feel that barrier would start to move. We might start seeing drugs having side affects in, say, 5 years rather than longer. Or causing unrelated illnesses in a certain set of people. I can't accept that it would be a good thing.

Also there is space for duplicitous companies to make a fast buck and endanger people. Look at how homeopathic remedies are popular; imagine if such people could play with real drugs?

A hypothetical - imagine that government regulations forbid the sales of laptops weighing more than 4lb, having less than 8gb ram and a 500gb HD (roughly a $5,000 laptop). Eliminating this regulation would almost certainly result in lower quality laptops (read: bigger, less ram) being sold.

I don't understand this argument. Partly because it's a meaningless comparison. But also because we are dealing with peoples lives; that is not a trivial thing!

(in actual fact I think a real analogy would be if the govt. regulated that the components of said laptop had to be proven stress tested for 6 months before release. Clearly that would be limiting - but the quality of the laptops sold would be much higher. Regardless I still think the example is too trivial).

[yummyfajitas]

We probably would see more dangerous drugs. We would also see more beneficial drugs, and more drugs with a mixed package of benefits and harms.

Another hypothetical: we might see an anti-depressants with a lower risk of sexual side effects, but a higher risk of heart attack. The FDA considers heart attacks much worse than impotence, so they would probably ban this drug.

Since I don't care that much about long life, but I care a great deal about good sex, I would probably choose this drug over a safer one which causes low sex drive. What right do you have to deny me this choice?

[ErrantX]

This is where my cynicism kicks in; look at the drugs companies. I suspect deregulation would see some very shady practices evolve and highly dubious drugs being pushed on hapless patients.

You clearly have the intelligence to make the decision you outline. You perhaps have the cynicism to see through marketing guff - or will take the time to read the research. Will everyone be able to make such an informed choice? Especially if the drugs companies are queued up pushing their merchandise!

What we have now limits your options, yes. But it also protects many others from a potentially dangerous uninformed decision. I believe at the moment we have the happy medium of morally protecting many people whilst still allowing an element of choice.

Here's a counter example too. Imagine you made your informed choice and then found that 5 or 6 years down the line these drugs left you with recurring, painful urinary infections. Or perhaps it causes memory loss. How would you feel about the choice you made then?

The irony is that with deregulation the chance of either of those drugs having such an effect seems potentially a lot higher....

[yummyfajitas]

So basically, you feel that there is a set of people out there incapable of making decisions for themselves. I suspect you also don't consider yourself to be part of that set.

But if some people truly are incompetent, why not just have them declared as such and not restrict the rights of others? Rather than creating a class of elites who rule over all of us, why not simply delegate the task of managing the incompetent to social workers or other such professionals?

[thaumaturgy]

You seem to discount the number of people that think homeopathics are an effective medicine.