4 ms·
Here's a much more specific response (from http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml): Gieringer (1985) used data on drug disaste
by glenra 14y ago
Here's a much more specific response (from http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml):
Gieringer (1985) used data on drug disasters in countries with less-stringent drug regulations than the United States to create a ballpark estimate of the number of lives saved by the extra scrutiny induced by FDA requirements. He then computed a similar ballpark figure for the number of lives lost owing to drug delay:
[T]he benefits of FDA regulation relative to that in foreign countries could reasonably be put at some 5,000 casualties per decade or 10,000 per decade for worst-case scenarios. In comparison, it has been argued above that the cost of FDA delay can be estimated at anywhere from 21,000 to 120,000 lives per decade. . . . Given the uncertainties of the data, these results must be interpreted with caution, although it seems clear that the costs of regulation are substantial when compared to benefits. (196)
In short, that paper estimates the FDA has killed more than twice as many people as it has saved.
The reference: "Gieringer, D. H. 1984. Consumer Choice and FDA Drug Regulation. Ph.D. diss., Department of Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University."
Here's another really good (and SHORT) general overview article that should address a lot of your concerns, "Economists Against the FDA" by Daniel B. Klein:
http://www.scu.edu/civilsocietyinstitute/articles/upload/EconagainstFDA.pdf http://www.scu.edu/civilsocietyinstitute/articles/upload/Eco...
When I said that delaying good drugs and good drug information kills, by drug information I meant stuff like this (from the Klein article):
Today men with risk of heart trouble know to take half an aspirin a day. By 1988 it was well established that aspirin greatly reduces the risk of myocardial occlusion. But for years the FDA forbade aspirin makers from advertising that fact (the FDA still significantly restricts advertising
about it). The FDA surely killed tens, and quite possibly hundreds, of thousands of Americans by this restriction alone."
- hackinthebochs 14y agoSorry, I didn't see this post earlier. The paper you link to makes some good arguments about the approval process. While I absolutely can't agree that the legal system can effectively screen out dangerous drugs without an oversight agency like the FDA, I can agree that the approval process for drugs to treat acute deadly diseases should be expedited in proportion to the severity of the condition it treats. The problem I see with these arguments is that they're using the worst case scenarios to argue abolishing the agency altogether. Aside from cases of life-saving drugs, the FDA also works to keep drugs and devices to treat non life-threatening or cosmetic cases from being harmful or deadly. An argument that beta-blocker drugs should have been approved faster is not an argument that your typical diet drug should have been. If we can draw a distinction between these cases, I'm more receptive to the arguments you're making. As far as aspirin for heart attacks goes, I can see the logic in not allowing a drug company to advertise its use for this purpose. Were doctors made aware of this use and were they trained to offer it as medication in appropriate cases? If so, then I think the system worked as it should. If not then there should be a system in place that disseminates such information to doctors and other medical professionals. But allowing drug companies to advertise directly is a massive can of worms. I don't think it should be allowed at all, let alone for "unproven" uses. People are not knowledgeable or responsible enough to evaluate the use of a drug based on uncertain information.