3 ms·

Ah, the "people will vote with their wallets" argument against medical regulation. I'm with you. I'd much prefer a bunch of people die first so the rest of us

by chasing 13y ago

Ah, the "people will vote with their wallets" argument against medical regulation. I'm with you. I'd much prefer a bunch of people die first so the rest of us can "vote with our wallets" instead of having a government agency step in and try to fix things before anyone gets hurt. I mean, my start-up is going to sell baby food laced with arsenic because I once heard that arsenic makes babies smarter and I think I once ingested some accidentally and I didn't die. If it really does end up killing babies, well, the market will eventually correct itself. And no harm, no foul, man. Except the dead babies. But at least I wouldn't have some nebbish bureaucrat knocking at my door trying to tell this American how to live his life.

ahallock 13y ago
What an absurd argument. If you sell baby food laced with arsenic, and babies die, you've committed murder. In a true free market, you wouldn't have a liability shield and would face severe consequences for putting out dangerous products. Just because it's a free market doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want with impunity. And also, the FDA is not some magic fairy dust that will shield you from bad products. Mountain Dew still has BVO in it, for example.
- chasing 13y ago
  You understand that the goal is to prevent the horrible thing from happening, right? Not to let the horrible thing happen and then try to fix something that's unfixable?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > In a true free market, you wouldn't have a liability shield and would face severe consequences for putting out dangerous products. Liability for defective (whether through malice, negligence, or in some cases on a strict liability basis) products is government intervention in the marketplace, and is specifically designed to address one of the ways that reality does not align with the presuppositions under which an unregulated "free market" is ideal, to wit, that people generally do not, in fact, act with perfect knowledge of the outcomes of economic decisions when they engage in them. It is no different than many other government interventions in the marketplace in its basis. > And also, the FDA is not some magic fairy dust that will shield you from bad products. Mountain Dew still has BVO in it, for example. That does not mean that its approval procedures (and procedures for reviewing products already on the market) do not have utility in providing clearer information on products within its regulatory domain and helping consumers avoid bad products.
bmelton 13y ago
Just to pare back the hyperbole -- there's really no practical way for someone to die from a 23andMe kit. We should be able to agree on that. There have been a bunch of concerns in this thread that are valid -- e.g., people might have to deal with bad news, or may see false positives, etc., that could cause them some inconvenience (though I would argue that 23andMe doesn't tell you that you have cancer, just maybe whether or not you're likely to). Regardless, the idea that I could die from a 23andMe test is about as far-fetched as one can get.

by chasing 13y ago

ahallock 13y ago

What an absurd argument. If you sell baby food laced with arsenic, and babies die, you've committed murder. In a true free market, you wouldn't have a liability shield and would face severe consequences for putting out dangerous products. Just because it's a free market doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want with impunity. And also, the FDA is not some magic fairy dust that will shield you from bad products. Mountain Dew still has BVO in it, for example.

chasing 13y ago
You understand that the goal is to prevent the horrible thing from happening, right? Not to let the horrible thing happen and then try to fix something that's unfixable?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> In a true free market, you wouldn't have a liability shield and would face severe consequences for putting out dangerous products. Liability for defective (whether through malice, negligence, or in some cases on a strict liability basis) products is government intervention in the marketplace, and is specifically designed to address one of the ways that reality does not align with the presuppositions under which an unregulated "free market" is ideal, to wit, that people generally do not, in fact, act with perfect knowledge of the outcomes of economic decisions when they engage in them. It is no different than many other government interventions in the marketplace in its basis. > And also, the FDA is not some magic fairy dust that will shield you from bad products. Mountain Dew still has BVO in it, for example. That does not mean that its approval procedures (and procedures for reviewing products already on the market) do not have utility in providing clearer information on products within its regulatory domain and helping consumers avoid bad products.

bmelton 13y ago

Just to pare back the hyperbole -- there's really no practical way for someone to die from a 23andMe kit. We should be able to agree on that. There have been a bunch of concerns in this thread that are valid -- e.g., people might have to deal with bad news, or may see false positives, etc., that could cause them some inconvenience (though I would argue that 23andMe doesn't tell you that you have cancer, just maybe whether or not you're likely to). Regardless, the idea that I could die from a 23andMe test is about as far-fetched as one can get.