|
|
|
Jewish World Review June 8, 2005 / 1 Sivan, 5765 Dismantle the FDA? By John Stossel
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Last week, I wrote about a federal agency that most people think
is indispensable. In reality, I said, the FDA regulates us to death,
literally, by forbidding even dying Americans who can't be helped by
established medical treatments from trying innovative therapies.
But what's the alternative? Have no oversight? Let any company
peddle every dubious medicine to an unsuspecting public? That sounds
terrifying. Snake-oil sellers would sell all kinds of harmful stuff. That's
why we created the FDA in the first place.
But wait a second. Snake oil sellers sell it anyway. I've done
consumer reports on snake-oil sellers for years. Crooks and deluded
optimists sell useless baldness remedies, breast enlargers and diet products
while the FDA is supposedly in charge. The FDA rarely stopped even the
obvious crooks. What it mostly stopped, or delayed, were the serious drug
companies' attempts at genuine innovations.
Without an FDA, how would doctors and patients know which drugs
were safe and effective?
The same way we know which computers and restaurants are good —
through newspapers, magazines and word of mouth. In a free, open society,
competition gets the information out, and that protects consumers better
than government command and control.
Why must we give big government so much power? Couldn't FDA
scrutiny be voluntary and advisory? Companies that want government blessing
would go through the whole process and, after 10 or 15 years, get the FDA's
seal of approval. Those of us who are cautious would take only FDA-approved
drugs.
But if you had a terminal illness, you could try something that
might save your life. You could try it without having to wait 15 years —
without having to break your country's laws to import it illegally from
Europe — without sneaking into Mexico to experiment in some dubious clinic.
If I'm dying, shouldn't my government allow me the right to try whatever I
want?
If FDA scrutiny were voluntary, the government agency would soon
have competition. Private groups like Consumer Reports and Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) might step in to compete with the FDA. The UL symbol is
already on thousands of products. No government force was required. Yet even
though UL certification is voluntary, its safety standards are so commonly
accepted that most stores won't carry products without the UL symbol.
We could try a system where the FDA would review all drugs, but
its approval wouldn't be needed for a drug to be sold. Private organizations
might go into competition with the FDA even if its review remained
mandatory. If a new drug is going to be "not yet rated" by the government
for 15 years, the endorsement of an independent evaluator — even one not
quite as strict as the FDA — that can deliver its opinion in three years
would be valuable. Under today's FDA rule, consumers assume big government
takes care of the whole issue, so we become less vigilant. The consumer is
encouraged to stay asleep: Don't ask questions; just take what Big Brother
approves. Yet, knowing what we know about the incompetence of government
monopolies, there's little doubt that competing private groups would do the
testing better, cheaper and quicker.
Any kind of FDA has its price. If all drugs have to be
reviewed — even if they can be sold while under review — the cost in money
and energy will keep some drugs off the market. But getting rid of the FDA's
power to forbid us to try something would be a big improvement: It would
mean Americans would no longer be forced to wait, and die while their
government passes judgment on innovations that could save them.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
© 2005, by JFS Productions, Inc. Distributed by Creators Syndicate, Inc. |
Arnold Ahlert | ||||||||||||
