5 ms·

I have a right to choose what I put in my body.^ Companies that make drugs have a right to sell what they make, as long as they don't lie or defraud me. Simply

I have a right to choose what I put in my body.^ Companies that make drugs have a right to sell what they make, as long as they don't lie or defraud me. Simply by doing what it was created to do, the FDA is violating my rights as a patient, as well as the rights of all of those whose rights give rise to the drug companies (i.e., employees and shareholders). Suppose that a new regulation passed that eliminated off-label prescriptions. Many will agree that the suffering and death that would result would be immense. (Just ask anyone who has a friend or relative that's benefited from an off-label drug.) Yet off-label prescriptions fly in the face of what the FDA does. What's going on here? What we choose to do when we're sick ultimately rests on each of us, individually. We all need to be free to do the research ourselves or to delegate this responsibility to whomever each of us has trust in (a particular doctor, for example). The inevitable consequence of losing this freedom is that far more of us suffer and die today than would otherwise. The valid function of the FDA (valid insofar as it is a source of scientific information) should be performed by a private organization like Consumer Reports, which has a great deal of authority, but is completely independent of both companies and the government. Consumer Reports doesn't use violence or the threat of violence to back itself up: the one thing that keeps it in business is trust. Certainly, Consumer Reports doesn't offer its products or services for gratis. But many people find the service valuable enough to pay, and with our bodies, the stakes are much higher. Most people will pay for such a drug-vetting service, either directly or through the professional they delegate health decisions to. We all want safe drugs, and the market is capable of producing and selling safe drugs to us. All we need is to be left free (meaning that the government does one thing only: prevent force and fraud), and verification organizations that pride themselves on true independence will arise. ^This right over your own body really is absolute (so long as you're not hurting someone else). I don't use or advocate for the use of illegal drugs, but it really is no one's business but your own. Yaron Brook recently summed it up best when he said, "You know you're in trouble when you declare war on inanimate objects."

alnayyir 16y ago
Stow the politics, this isn't the place for it. Take it to Reddit. A few points: 1. Consumer Reports messes up, your dishwasher might break down before the end of the warranty. 2. A drug company messes up, hundreds, potentially thousands die or have their lifespans severely curtailed in terms of quality of life or length. That's the last I'll say on it, the magnitude of what's at stake should be otherwise self-evident.
- maxharris 16y ago
  The common case isn't the drug company messing up. It's that the FDA gets in the way of a new drug (stopping it forever in some cases), and the patient with the incurable disease dies because there is no legally available treatment. With the FDA, his right to pursue what remains of his life is sacrificed to the FDA's illusion of safety. Human life is so important, and the needs of each individual body are frequently so diverse from one another, that we can't trust decisions like these to a one-size-fits-all regulatory body. This is yet another case where ethics and politics is a life-and-death matter (and for more people than you'd ever care to think about).
  - barrkel 16y ago
    A death owing to a mistake by a drug company is worth at least 100 deaths owing to lack of drug innovation and experimentation. It's psychology in the large, and it's very difficult to counteract. It's simply much easier for the free media to demonize the evil profit-grubbing soulless corporations killing babies than an abstract notion of opportunity cost.
    - maxharris 16y ago
      I voted you up. But I think that we can make a difference against ignorance, just by speaking up. In years past, I used to make the mistake of just being quiet when political or moral topics came up, just because I didn't think it would be of any use. I don't think that's true any longer because I realized that if you can state your case clearly enough, and it's a rational position, at least some people will listen. You don't have to immediately convince everyone, or even the majority of people. Just making the correct argument shifts the debate toward a better direction, and that's a powerful thing.
    - ramanujan 16y ago
      That's why you need to interview all the people who had family members die during the seven year average FDA induced lag between drug submission and clearance. That dramatizes opportunity cost.
  - 16y ago
barrkel 16y ago
That's all wonderful etc., but unfortunately it's Utopian pie in the sky which can never come to pass in a democracy. When people die owing to other people making mistakes, the people demand the government takes action, and it does, and there goes your libertarian wonderland. To the downvoters out there: if you're serious about this problem, you need to live in the real world. That would be more productive.
- maxharris 16y ago
  Well, that's why democracy must be limited by individual rights. Remember, an unlimited democracy voted Socrates to die when it ordered him drink hemlock. It was his punishment for "corrupting" the youths of Athens. America was founded as a republic limited by a constitution, and it existed that way for a long time. It wasn't an unachieved pie-in-the-sky wonderland (nor was it perfect: I think the civil war was a just and necessary war). You can make this world better. It's just a matter of understanding things well enough to argue rationally for the right thing. After all, how did the Rennaisance happen, or the American revolution? The people that lived then were just like you and I in this respect, and they didn't even have the benefit of the Internet to communicate.
ramanujan 16y ago
Indeed. The genomics community is currently very angry at the FDA, as a senior official (CDRH director Jeffrey Shuren) appears to have been caught red handed lying under oath: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI-m2Cucdoo His stated rationale is that increased FDA regulation against startups will help the"traditional manufacturers". No, really. Watch the whole thing.
- maxharris 16y ago
  I watched the whole thing. I think that most people would be shocked by the things Shuren and Latta said, if only they had heard them. Thanks for posting this!
jpulgarin 16y ago
How is this getting upvoted? It reads like an entry in the Atlas Shrugged essay contest.
- maxharris 16y ago
  How is your statement any different from "I can't believe that several people don't agree with me"? Or could it be that there really is something to these ideas? There is a strong intellectual foundation here, and while the novel you mentioned describes much of it, a much fuller explanation can be found in her nonfiction work. As an intellectual movement, we're gaining steam. Here's a recording of a debate held in NY between Yaron Brook (aynrand.org) and Miles Rapoport (demos.org) just five days ago: http://www.archive.org/details/FirstPrinciples-Government_WhatIsItsProperRole_ http://www.archive.org/details/FirstPrinciples-Government_Wh... Here's a link to the debate site (WNYC is New York public radio): http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/mar/02/debating-first-principles-proper-role-government/ http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/mar/02/de... Right now, most people don't agree, but when they hear these ideas out out, they do realize that they constitute a respectable argument (and one that they haven't heard before). Twenty years from now, our ideas will be mainstream in the sense that most people will have heard them and have some idea of what they are (and how they're different from conservativism and libertarianism). Obviously, people will never agree with everything that anyone has to say, but that isn't the point. The point is to get people to think about this stuff in a productive way. The more people that do that, the better.

alnayyir 16y ago

Stow the politics, this isn't the place for it. Take it to Reddit. A few points: 1. Consumer Reports messes up, your dishwasher might break down before the end of the warranty. 2. A drug company messes up, hundreds, potentially thousands die or have their lifespans severely curtailed in terms of quality of life or length. That's the last I'll say on it, the magnitude of what's at stake should be otherwise self-evident.

maxharris 16y ago
The common case isn't the drug company messing up. It's that the FDA gets in the way of a new drug (stopping it forever in some cases), and the patient with the incurable disease dies because there is no legally available treatment. With the FDA, his right to pursue what remains of his life is sacrificed to the FDA's illusion of safety. Human life is so important, and the needs of each individual body are frequently so diverse from one another, that we can't trust decisions like these to a one-size-fits-all regulatory body. This is yet another case where ethics and politics is a life-and-death matter (and for more people than you'd ever care to think about).
- barrkel 16y ago
  A death owing to a mistake by a drug company is worth at least 100 deaths owing to lack of drug innovation and experimentation. It's psychology in the large, and it's very difficult to counteract. It's simply much easier for the free media to demonize the evil profit-grubbing soulless corporations killing babies than an abstract notion of opportunity cost.
  - maxharris 16y ago
    I voted you up. But I think that we can make a difference against ignorance, just by speaking up. In years past, I used to make the mistake of just being quiet when political or moral topics came up, just because I didn't think it would be of any use. I don't think that's true any longer because I realized that if you can state your case clearly enough, and it's a rational position, at least some people will listen. You don't have to immediately convince everyone, or even the majority of people. Just making the correct argument shifts the debate toward a better direction, and that's a powerful thing.
  - ramanujan 16y ago
    That's why you need to interview all the people who had family members die during the seven year average FDA induced lag between drug submission and clearance. That dramatizes opportunity cost.
- 16y ago

barrkel 16y ago

That's all wonderful etc., but unfortunately it's Utopian pie in the sky which can never come to pass in a democracy. When people die owing to other people making mistakes, the people demand the government takes action, and it does, and there goes your libertarian wonderland. To the downvoters out there: if you're serious about this problem, you need to live in the real world. That would be more productive.

maxharris 16y ago
Well, that's why democracy must be limited by individual rights. Remember, an unlimited democracy voted Socrates to die when it ordered him drink hemlock. It was his punishment for "corrupting" the youths of Athens. America was founded as a republic limited by a constitution, and it existed that way for a long time. It wasn't an unachieved pie-in-the-sky wonderland (nor was it perfect: I think the civil war was a just and necessary war). You can make this world better. It's just a matter of understanding things well enough to argue rationally for the right thing. After all, how did the Rennaisance happen, or the American revolution? The people that lived then were just like you and I in this respect, and they didn't even have the benefit of the Internet to communicate.

ramanujan 16y ago

Indeed. The genomics community is currently very angry at the FDA, as a senior official (CDRH director Jeffrey Shuren) appears to have been caught red handed lying under oath: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI-m2Cucdoo His stated rationale is that increased FDA regulation against startups will help the"traditional manufacturers". No, really. Watch the whole thing.

maxharris 16y ago
I watched the whole thing. I think that most people would be shocked by the things Shuren and Latta said, if only they had heard them. Thanks for posting this!

jpulgarin 16y ago

How is this getting upvoted? It reads like an entry in the Atlas Shrugged essay contest.

maxharris 16y ago
How is your statement any different from "I can't believe that several people don't agree with me"? Or could it be that there really is something to these ideas? There is a strong intellectual foundation here, and while the novel you mentioned describes much of it, a much fuller explanation can be found in her nonfiction work. As an intellectual movement, we're gaining steam. Here's a recording of a debate held in NY between Yaron Brook (aynrand.org) and Miles Rapoport (demos.org) just five days ago: http://www.archive.org/details/FirstPrinciples-Government_WhatIsItsProperRole_ http://www.archive.org/details/FirstPrinciples-Government_Wh... Here's a link to the debate site (WNYC is New York public radio): http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/mar/02/debating-first-principles-proper-role-government/ http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/mar/02/de... Right now, most people don't agree, but when they hear these ideas out out, they do realize that they constitute a respectable argument (and one that they haven't heard before). Twenty years from now, our ideas will be mainstream in the sense that most people will have heard them and have some idea of what they are (and how they're different from conservativism and libertarianism). Obviously, people will never agree with everything that anyone has to say, but that isn't the point. The point is to get people to think about this stuff in a productive way. The more people that do that, the better.