3 ms·

It's not illegal to take them, but yes I doubt insurance will cover unapproved treatments. Also, while it's not directly illegal for a doctor to prescribe an un

It's not illegal to take them, but yes I doubt insurance will cover unapproved treatments. Also, while it's not directly illegal for a doctor to prescribe an unapproved drug, I think it would open them up to malpractice lawsuits, and it just seems like a bad idea in general. Here's a doctor's blog post about this issue: http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2013/08/26/should-a-doctor-prescribe-drugs-that-are-unapproved-by-the-fda/ http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2013/08/26/should-a-doctor...

darkerside 10y ago
That definitely seems different than "withholding" treatments as described in the article. If you want to use an unapproved drug, you can do so, it's just not going to be paid for by our shared insurance system. Makes total sense to me. I'm not arguing, just wondering what exactly is the problem that this act is trying to solve.
- burkaman 10y ago
  The problem is mostly on the side of drug and medical device companies. They spend lots of money on research and development and they want an easier and faster return on their investment. There are also problems for patients, when someone hears about a promising new treatment for their serious condition, but it's going to take several years to get through FDA approval. > If you want to use an unapproved drug, you can do so This is not true in general. Where do you get it? A doctor won't prescribe it, you can't get it from a pharmacy without a prescription, you certainly can't just order it directly from the drug company. Sometimes it might be more easily available in another country, but that won't always be the case.
  - darkerside 10y ago
    You're right. My other comment was hopefully more informed thanks to the article you posted.
darkerside 10y ago
Thanks for sharing the article. Layman's perspective, but it seems like the problem in the USA is not the FDA regulation process, but the drug prescription process. If I, a functional adult, have done the research and weighed the risks and decided I want to purchase a specific drug or treatment, why should I need a doctor to "co-sign the loan" for me? We're coupling doctors' financial risks to patients' health risks when the decision making factors are significantly different.
- burkaman 10y ago
  If prescriptions were not necessary, drug advertising would be even more heavily targeted at average consumers, addiction problems would be more widespread, and anyone could operate a doctor's office without a license or proper education. You should have the right to put whatever you want into your body, but drug companies and pharmacies should not have the right to sell whatever they want to you. Fundamentally, you have not "done the research and weighed the risks" unless you went to medical school.
  - darkerside 10y ago
    I disagree that medical school makes anyone more of an expert on my body than me. Not to discount years of experience and training physicians have, but it's just one leg of the stool. By over-weighting it, you become just another patient who is not staying informed and involved with their own treatment. Doctors know a lot, but you can ask any doctor if they know everything about the human body, and they'll sure tell you they don't. I think sensible people can choose to procure FDA approved treatments through conventional providers. It's a jump to assume that, just because alternative treatments are available, everybody will be lining up to purchase them.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      I'm not talking about alternative treatments. If prescriptions are not necessary, anyone can buy opiates without understanding the risks of addiction. Anyone can open a doctor's office, charge half as much as a real doctor, and recommend whatever drugs they feel like. Anyone can buy some heart medication they saw on TV because they've been having chest pains. Doctors absolutely know more about your body than you do. Obviously they don't know everything, and patients should be active and involved, but that doesn't mean you can cut out the doctor because you read a few papers. Letting drug companies sell anything to anybody would be immensely damaging to society.

darkerside 10y ago

That definitely seems different than "withholding" treatments as described in the article. If you want to use an unapproved drug, you can do so, it's just not going to be paid for by our shared insurance system. Makes total sense to me. I'm not arguing, just wondering what exactly is the problem that this act is trying to solve.

burkaman 10y ago
The problem is mostly on the side of drug and medical device companies. They spend lots of money on research and development and they want an easier and faster return on their investment. There are also problems for patients, when someone hears about a promising new treatment for their serious condition, but it's going to take several years to get through FDA approval. > If you want to use an unapproved drug, you can do so This is not true in general. Where do you get it? A doctor won't prescribe it, you can't get it from a pharmacy without a prescription, you certainly can't just order it directly from the drug company. Sometimes it might be more easily available in another country, but that won't always be the case.
- darkerside 10y ago
  You're right. My other comment was hopefully more informed thanks to the article you posted.

darkerside 10y ago

Thanks for sharing the article. Layman's perspective, but it seems like the problem in the USA is not the FDA regulation process, but the drug prescription process. If I, a functional adult, have done the research and weighed the risks and decided I want to purchase a specific drug or treatment, why should I need a doctor to "co-sign the loan" for me? We're coupling doctors' financial risks to patients' health risks when the decision making factors are significantly different.

burkaman 10y ago
If prescriptions were not necessary, drug advertising would be even more heavily targeted at average consumers, addiction problems would be more widespread, and anyone could operate a doctor's office without a license or proper education. You should have the right to put whatever you want into your body, but drug companies and pharmacies should not have the right to sell whatever they want to you. Fundamentally, you have not "done the research and weighed the risks" unless you went to medical school.
- darkerside 10y ago
  I disagree that medical school makes anyone more of an expert on my body than me. Not to discount years of experience and training physicians have, but it's just one leg of the stool. By over-weighting it, you become just another patient who is not staying informed and involved with their own treatment. Doctors know a lot, but you can ask any doctor if they know everything about the human body, and they'll sure tell you they don't. I think sensible people can choose to procure FDA approved treatments through conventional providers. It's a jump to assume that, just because alternative treatments are available, everybody will be lining up to purchase them.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    I'm not talking about alternative treatments. If prescriptions are not necessary, anyone can buy opiates without understanding the risks of addiction. Anyone can open a doctor's office, charge half as much as a real doctor, and recommend whatever drugs they feel like. Anyone can buy some heart medication they saw on TV because they've been having chest pains. Doctors absolutely know more about your body than you do. Obviously they don't know everything, and patients should be active and involved, but that doesn't mean you can cut out the doctor because you read a few papers. Letting drug companies sell anything to anybody would be immensely damaging to society.