Should the FDA be abolished?

[A18]

I vote yes, of course

[MODU]

No.  They do more good than harm.

[MaC]

Hell yeah.  There are many drugs that could be used to cure people that needlessly go through government red tape to get approved.  Imagine if there was a drug to cure AIDS.  People would have to suffer for 5-10 years longer than necessary since it would have to be approved by the FDA.

[A18]

Hell yeah.  There are many drugs that could be used to cure people that needlessly go through government red tape to get approved.

Correct. FDA approval is a double edged sword: it can save the public from bad drugs, or it can prevent the needy from getting good drugs.

Of course, in a free market, drug companies would be responsible for the drugs they put out. If a bad drug ends up hurting people, a law suit can go forward.

[nclib]

No.  They do more good than harm.

^^^^^^^

[opebo]

Hell yeah.  There are many drugs that could be used to cure people that needlessly go through government red tape to get approved.  Imagine if there was a drug to cure AIDS.  People would have to suffer for 5-10 years longer than necessary since it would have to be approved by the FDA.

I'm sure there would be lots of 'cures' for aids being peddled in a laissez-faire economy!

Of course, in a free market, drug companies would be responsible for the drugs they put out. If a bad drug ends up hurting people, a law suit can go forward.

I believe your side is trying to limit liability.. or did they already?

[MaC]

Hell yeah.  There are many drugs that could be used to cure people that needlessly go through government red tape to get approved.  Imagine if there was a drug to cure AIDS.  People would have to suffer for 5-10 years longer than necessary since it would have to be approved by the FDA.

I'm sure there would be lots of 'cures' for aids being peddled in a laissez-faire economy!

I'm not saying the laissez-faire economy would be a sufficient condition to create a cure for AIDS (though it couldn't hurt)

If you're talking about peddling, such thing does not exist in the free market.  Let's say 10 different people would claim to know a cure.  Consumer groups would still be interested in testing out products (w/o an FDA) and they'd do research to find out which was the best cure.  The individual who has the cure would profit and AIDS gets swept into the history books with the black plague and cow pox.

Now, should the finder of the cure have his drug regulated, or should he pay large amount of taxes on the millions he makes with discovery?  Of course not-or else why would he want to fiund a cure in the first place?

[© tweed]

Of course not.

I know the libertarians don't care if the public's popping poison pills that are supposed to be an antibiotic, but I do.

[A18]

I know the libertarians don't care if the public's popping poison pills that are supposed to be an antibiotic, but I do.

Uh, nice straw man. I guess you didn't read our posts.

I guess the statists don't care if people suffer because the FDA has not yet approved some drug.

[© tweed]

I know the libertarians don't care if the public's popping poison pills that are supposed to be an antibiotic, but I do.

Uh, nice straw man. I guess you didn't read our posts.

I guess the statists don't care if people suffer because the FDA takes too long to approve some drug.

Obviously, the FDA isn't perfect; for example, I remember a story on them not giving medical marijuana a fair process through whatever system they use.

But, it's better that its there than if it isn't there.  If there are no standards for a safety of a drug, more people will die from bad drugs they have to buy due to illnesses than will under the current system.

[A18]

I already responded to that claim.

[© tweed]

I already responded to that claim.

The definition is too broad, that of 'responsible'.

Do I have a lawsuit if the drug doesn't work?
Or if it just doesn't hurt me, is it okay?

If the first condition is true, then you'd seee millions of frivilous lawsuits pop up.

If the second condition is true, then companies could charge alot of money for blank pills.

[A18]

What nonsense. This is how you deal with absolutely all forms of consumer complaints.

[© tweed]

What nonsense. This is how you deal with absolutely all forms of consumer complaints.

Most 'consumer complaints' aren't life/death matters.

[A18]

Many are, and that's irrelevant anyway, since we're only discussing deterrents and frivolous lawsuits.

[© tweed]

Many are, and that's irrelevant anyway, since we're only discussing deterrents and frivolous lawsuits.

No, it's hardly irrelevant.

If you buy a radio and it doesn't work, that's nice.  Exchange it.

If you buy a drug and they don't work, that's a problem.  You easily could die.

[A18]

It's irrelevant because we're only discussing deterrents and frivolous lawsuits.

[© tweed]

How exactly is what I posted irrelevant?  The subject title, and poll question, of this thread is "should the FDA be abolished".  Two reasons I gave for why not is:

1) increase in frivilous lawsuits
2) people would die

[A18]

There would be no more frivolous lawsuits than with anything else, and they can be dealt with the same way.

There's a deterrent because of suits, as with other products.

[© tweed]

There's a deterrent because of suits, as with other products.

Of course there's a 'deterrent'; but, the results of a business not adhering to the law in order to make money is far more catastrophic.

This is basically a fundamental battle between economic centrism and a lassiez-faire purist.  You're willing to voluntarily trust businesses and put lives on the line, but I'm not.

[A18]

Of course there's a 'deterrent'; but, the results of a business not adhering to the law in order to make money is far more catastrophic.

Uh, they're not going to make money by 'ignoring the law.' They're going to lose money.

I suppose under your reasoning, even the FDA is no solution, because businesses can just ignore it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. Under my incentive, businesses will be responsible for what they do.

It's like airline safety regulations. They make no sense, because the airline has the greatest incentive to make sure they aren't losing millions of dollars.

[Erc]

People should, of course, be allowed to use non-FDA-approved drugs (including those in the stages of FDA approval), at their own risk.  We shouldn't ban the FDA though.

Ultimately, the FDA saves money and lives.

[Alcon]

People should, of course, be allowed to use non-FDA-approved drugs (including those in the stages of FDA approval), at their own risk.  We shouldn't ban the FDA though.

Ultimately, the FDA saves money and lives.

I agree.

Drugs should come with FDA labels.

[MaC]

How exactly is what I posted irrelevant?  The subject title, and poll question, of this thread is "should the FDA be abolished".  Two reasons I gave for why not is:

1) increase in frivilous lawsuits
2) people would die

Tweed, people die, even with the FDA.  Vioxx caused many deaths, and it was still put on the market until the press got wind of it.

[Emsworth]

Absolutely. The benefit provided by the FDA--deterring the production of unsafe drugs--would be provided much more efficiently by a free market.