If you think Libertarian arguments against the FDA are just lala land thought experiments, think again. Two cancer experts were threatened (presumably with violence, but interestingly enough the article does not say) for opposing a new prostate cancer drug. When the FDA is regulating drugs, they are in essence regulating the hope of desperate people. I don’t think that is a proper role for government to play.
The Food and Drug Administration said in May that it would not approve Provenge without more evidence that it was safe and effective.
Patients with incurable diseases often advocate for approval of new drugs even if the data supporting them are not perfect. But threats to people with opposing views to take such advocacy to a new level. That could discourage rational discussion of drugs or deter experts from serving on government advisory committees, where Drs. Scher and Hussain first publicly voiced their opinions.
1 comments:
I wish I would have missed this post. I see all three sides (the Doctors, the patient, the caregiver) to this issue and I can defend or attack, from all points.
Butd do we really think the Doctors are indifferent to the effects of their denial, do we really think the patient would want to suffer more because of the drugs, do we really think the caretaker wants to suffer a lifetime of regret for making the wrong decision.
This is what Shakespeare would have used to develope a plot to tell of an event that caues great sadness, a tragedy.
Post a Comment