3 ms·

Accounting for deaths caused by inaction is not the same as weighing false negative the same as false positives. I am not suggesting no regulation, I am suggest

Accounting for deaths caused by inaction is not the same as weighing false negative the same as false positives. I am not suggesting no regulation, I am suggesting that a death caused by inaction (or extreme caution) is the same a death caused by an action such as mistakenly approving a dangerous drug. Both outcomes should both be considered when making a decision. Chesterton’s Fence is not appropriate here as we know the reason the FDA fence exists and what problem it is trying to solve. The issue is the FDA is solving the wrong problem (stopping bad drugs getting to market) not trying to minimise human death and suffering.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Stopping bad drugs == reducing human death and suffering. Death thru inaction includes taking worthless drugs that have no proven value. Which would happen pervasively if no fence were erected between proposing a drug and selling it.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  The OP said nothing about removing the fence. He advocated holding the FDA responsible for deaths resulting from failure to approve a good drug as well as deaths resulting from approving a bad one. Those are two entirely different things.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Which would be foolishness, as it ignores the incredible suffering and death caused by quackery in fake medicines. Unless that is included in the calculation, then tragedy is inevitable. Loading the dice against the FDA by blaming them for pre-existing suffering could only result in hasty approval. This sounds exactly like 'removing the fence' to me - gutting the FDA to make folks feel like they're reforming something.
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      You're still arguing against something the OP isn't actually advocating. I see nothing suggesting that "quackery" or "fake medicines" should be approved.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        The whole process is to avoid approving medicines that don't work. Shortcutting the process may allow through medicines that don't work. Each time that happens, people die. Its that simple. E.g. My cousin died from a drug that was approved too quickly. He could have used something else and lived.
        Turing_Machine 10y ago
        "The whole process is to avoid approving medicines that don't work. " No. The process is to identify medicines that are safe and effective. That is not the same thing at all. Under your viewpoint not approving a medicine that is safe and effective is perfectly fine. Under my viewpoint (and, I strongly suspect, most other people's) not approving a medicine that is safe and effective is a failure. There are ways to avoid that without "shortcutting the process". The point that is actually being made (but which you seem to be avoiding addressing) is that approving dangerous drugs is bad, and not approving good drugs is also bad.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Stopping bad drugs == reducing human death and suffering. Death thru inaction includes taking worthless drugs that have no proven value. Which would happen pervasively if no fence were erected between proposing a drug and selling it.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
The OP said nothing about removing the fence. He advocated holding the FDA responsible for deaths resulting from failure to approve a good drug as well as deaths resulting from approving a bad one. Those are two entirely different things.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Which would be foolishness, as it ignores the incredible suffering and death caused by quackery in fake medicines. Unless that is included in the calculation, then tragedy is inevitable. Loading the dice against the FDA by blaming them for pre-existing suffering could only result in hasty approval. This sounds exactly like 'removing the fence' to me - gutting the FDA to make folks feel like they're reforming something.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    You're still arguing against something the OP isn't actually advocating. I see nothing suggesting that "quackery" or "fake medicines" should be approved.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      The whole process is to avoid approving medicines that don't work. Shortcutting the process may allow through medicines that don't work. Each time that happens, people die. Its that simple. E.g. My cousin died from a drug that was approved too quickly. He could have used something else and lived.
      - Turing_Machine 10y ago
        "The whole process is to avoid approving medicines that don't work. " No. The process is to identify medicines that are safe and effective. That is not the same thing at all. Under your viewpoint not approving a medicine that is safe and effective is perfectly fine. Under my viewpoint (and, I strongly suspect, most other people's) not approving a medicine that is safe and effective is a failure. There are ways to avoid that without "shortcutting the process". The point that is actually being made (but which you seem to be avoiding addressing) is that approving dangerous drugs is bad, and not approving good drugs is also bad.