I wrote a little earlier this week where an appeals court said that patients do not have a constitutional right to seek out "unapproved" medical treatments. I then vaguely remembered reading a columnist talk about the incentives used by the FDA to approve a drug.
So, we have a system where by it is better for the FDA to not approve a drug and it is not allowed for a patient to seek treatment outside of that approval. This does not sound like a good combination to me. I personally don't think the government should be in the business of approving and disapproving drugs. Now, that doesn't mean I don't think there shouldn't be any oversight.
The scope of the government's involvement in the drug industry should be limited to ensure that a pharmaceutical company does not use fraud when selling a drug. In other words the government should verify that the company has done testing and that the company makes the results of that testing freely available to doctors and patients. It is then up to the patients, with consult from their doctors, to determine if they are willing to take the risks.
So, if a drug is known to kill 50% or its patients and completely cure 50% of its patients, then that information must be freely given to the individual and let him make the decision. For the government to step in and prevent the individual from being able to even make that decision is an over-stepping of the rights of the individual
No comments:
Post a Comment