[ErrantX]

I dispute the way you interpret my original comment though. The point I was making was that I assumed you were, in this hypothetical situation, going to read the research and calculate the proper risks associated with the drug you choose.

If you dont then your not making a properly informed choice. I postulate that most people wouldn't - not through a lack of intelligence necessarily but all manner of reasons (laziness, misinformation, confusion, disinterest). Don't we have a moral right to avoid putting them in a position to accidentally choose a drug that kills you in a few years time?

This is the main point really; your example is very compelling (because I actually agree we should be able to quantify and choose our own risk). But I feel the real issue with de-regulation is that the drugs would have unknown future side affects.

Taking your example: what if the drug had only been tested and used for a year or so. You start using it understanding the risk so far discovered (fair enough) - but then in 3 years time it is discovered regular users are developing terminal cancers. What if they discover that any regular use brings the death rate within 5 years to 100%?

These are the risks regulation tries to balance out.

[yummyfajitas]

I may read the research, I may simply trust the (advisory only) FDA, I may trust my doctor, or I may take the average opinion of my doctor, the FDA and Consumer Reports. Whatever I chose, I feel my risk weighting is appropriate for me personally. Why do you feel you know better than I do what is best for me?

As for quantification of future risks, any individual drug has unknown future side effects. To quantify the risk, we quantify based on the reference class of all drugs:

P(unknown side effects | new drug) = (# drugs with bad side effects) / (# drugs with more than 5 years of use)

Suppose this number works out to less than 100 deaths per 100,000 drug users (I'm willing to bet it does). That is the death rate of commercial fishing. Assuming you don't favor having regulators ban commercial fishing, and assuming this number is less than 1 in 1000, would you favor changing regulations on new drugs?

If not, why not?

[ErrantX]

> As for quantification of future risks, any individual drug has unknown future side effects.

Meh, I already made this point previously :)

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"

Clearly drugs will end up having uknown effects. We have to balance releasing drugs quickly with understanding the most immediate risks they present.

The immediate problem with your figures is that they deal with current drugs regulation. I imagine they are limited by the regulations - and so if you remove them the figure may start to creep up (as dangerously undertested drugs hit the market). How far does it have to go before it's too far?

No, I approve of the idea of exploring ways to reduce regulation and open up industry. But total removal; seems a bit of a slippery slope :)