PDA

View Full Version : How would not having an FDA work?




GreenLP
10-07-2010, 06:42 PM
Besides responding with something like "very well!", just curious how society would deal with pharmaceutical drugs and medical equipment safety?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the FDA. I think they are bought and sold by the Pharma industry to decrease competition for big Pharma. I think the FDA helps to squash natural medicines. I also think FDA regulations kill far more people than they save.

That being said, how would a Libertarian society deal with a Pharma company who releases dangerous drugs? Would we just have to wait until the damage is done -- lots of people injured, killed, or have deformed babies -- before people can sue the company?

Would Pharma be able to sell directly to the public? I can just image how many people would be hooked on drugs like Oxycontin.

TCE
10-07-2010, 09:20 PM
Several occurrences would unfold:

1. One or more private certification companies would begin and rate pharmaceuticals. Before people bought a drug, they would look for their favorite certification company to rank it (which the Pharma company would pay for) and they'd get a rank. This is how the Organic Industry and Gluten Free industry work. Even with the USDA Certified organic logo, it is all private enterprises. Organicans know which private certifiers are the best and go for brands with that.

2. Lawsuits. Yes, some people might die, but without an FDA, Big Pharma would be forced to pay for damages their drugs cause. Right now, most of the time, the FDA can mitigate the damage to the drug companies and sometimes, as with the Vaccine Court, have the public pay for the damages. With all of the new supplement competition, drug companies will have lost their monopoly and won't be able to afford releasing dangerous drugs or else they could very easily go out of business.

3. Private consumer watchdogs such as Consumer Reports. Others would likely begin focusing more on drugs as well without an FDA. If they believed a drug was harmful or useless, they'd report on it. It is already a fact that a segment of the population will pay for consumer product information, such as Consumer Reports, so imagine publications or websites focused solely on drugs isn't hard to imagine.

4. Importation of drugs. The FDA is the biggest barrier to foreign competition in the pharmaceutical industry. Apparently, free trade is great...unless drugs are involved. Canada has an FDA, so their drugs will be imported for far less and will have been tested. Same for other countries around the world. That will also force our American prices down. Can anyone say "who needs health insurance to pay for cheap drugs?"

5. Food companies will be able to tell the truth about their products. Vitamin C cures scurvy, we pretty much know that, but orange producers legally can't say that because of the FDA. There are many other fruits out there with major health benefits. Notice how all of the packaged junk foods like Cheerios can have health benefits but raw foods can't? Without an FDA, producers of Kale, blueberries, etc can tout their high ORAC antioxidant values without fear of retribution. With this new marketing, a surge in raw, healthy foods would likely take place causing people to be healthier.

The list goes on and on.

GreenLP
10-07-2010, 11:00 PM
Thanks TCE, those are some reassuring answers.

What about selling pharmas, like Oxycontin, without a prescription? I know it's like saying "well what about legalizing cocaine, or heroin?" which I'm for legalization. Would pharma companies just risk suffering potential blowback of society being appalled a pharma company chose to sell their addicting drugs to the public without a prescription?

Acala
10-08-2010, 11:35 AM
Adding a bit more to the already excellent posts.

Contrary to what some advocates of government regulation would have you believe, most people - even evil profit-seeking businessmen - do not want to poison their neighbors. So above all else, most pharmaceutical businesses (especially if they are not allowed to hide behind phony corporate identities) are going to try and sell good products that will bring repeat business from their customers, not kill them or make them sick and thereby ruin the company and the reputation of its managers. A truly free and competitive market is the best insurance that drug makers will produce quality products.

As for addicting drugs, it is always going to be up to the individual person to make healthy decisions for themselves. The vast authority, cost, and brutality of the FDA, DEA, and police have not stopped drug addiction, legal and illegal. There will be drug addiction in a truly free market as well. But so what? People will also make other bad decisions about their health - eating poorly, not exercising, etc. They will then suffer the consequences and others will learn from them.

amy31416
10-08-2010, 11:45 AM
The medical device plant that I used to work in had a division that made STD tests--after a few false positives (and quite a few lawsuits), they self-corrected and instituted their own quality control.

That was way before my time, so I don't have first-hand knowledge of it, but I do have first-hand experience "working" with the FDA. They're a bunch of power-hungry thugs, who generally don't know shit about science or manufacturing processes. They seriously walk into your lab with the intent of intimidating you and often force companies to buy unnecessary and more expensive equipment to suit their own whims, not the needs of the business or quality. Oh, and they love making you write new standard operating procedures--which we'd often do to humor them, then change back as soon as they left. It's funny how, after an FDA audit, we'd all have a list of bullshit things to do, and challenging them was a waste of time, given that it made them mad, made them look for other things (yeah, they'd target specific people) and it was like going to trial to attempt to justify NOT doing something they demanded. I ran experiments, collected and analyzed data for two weeks to get a waiver so we did not have to change a process (it was a process that we'd been doing for over 30 years, with very few problems.)

They're especially hyper about "traceability" and we were forced to replace 10 digital recorders to the tune of 20k apiece, because they couldn't understand the programming code we used to run the equipment and claimed that it wasn't traceable because of that. Funny thing is, if I wanted to fake all the data, it would have been far easier on the new units than on the old, simply because it was easier to program.

I really hate the FDA, they stifle change, innovation and add massively to the cost of the products--often for no good reason, except that they seem to need to feel they've done something to justify their massive paychecks and existence. Not unlike bad cops, it seems.

And all that adds to your medical bills.

steve005
10-08-2010, 12:05 PM
word of mouth-internet-buying power

dannno
10-08-2010, 12:30 PM
That being said, how would a Libertarian society deal with a Pharma company who releases dangerous drugs? Would we just have to wait until the damage is done -- lots of people injured, killed, or have deformed babies -- before people can sue the company?

No, people wouldn't buy the product in large numbers unless it has been tested by a reputable source, beyond that a reputable source that a large number of people trust. Right now there is something called moral hazard, where people assume that because the drug is on the market it must be safe...afterall, government has tested it out and said it is ok, right? I don't trust government, but a lot of people do. If you took away the FDA, then people would have to find another trustworthy source to find out whether a particular medication is safe. Right now they are being tricked. They can be tricked by a private company, but people will naturally be more cautious of private companies and private companies don't have any sort of "authority" over the market so they have much less power. Also consider that with the FDA, look at how many people take dangerous drugs because the FDA says they are OK. I think it would be better if people were more cautious, take the FDA out of the picture.




Would Pharma be able to sell directly to the public? I can just image how many people would be hooked on drugs like Oxycontin.

People tend to stick to safer, more natural substances when possible. If opium was widely available and legal, then people who want to use opiates would tend towards using opium instead of heroin or oxycontin. It would be cheaper, safer, less addictive and more natural. Heroin is extremely toxic, addictive and the main reason people use it is because it is more available on the street.. and the only reason for that is because it is worth more money per square inch, and most opiates are flown in on planes. It is very risky, so the more $$ worth of product you can fit onto the plane, that is what is going to make it's way over here.

In South America, it is still relatively common for people to use coca rather than cocaine, even though both substances are relatively common. Coca is more safe, less addictive and it allows people to be productive.. but it isn't worth shipping it over on a plane in leaf form with all the risk when it can be broken down into powder form which is much more lucrative.

Cannabis is a great example of how people tend to choose safer, less addictive substances as it is the most widely used illegal substance.. it is also the safest and least toxic illegal substance, it is what the market demands.

TonySutton
10-08-2010, 02:33 PM
Simply look to UL for your answer!

acptulsa
10-08-2010, 02:48 PM
Simply look to UL for your answer!

Best of all, compare the FDA track record as described by Amy to the track record of Underwriters' Laboratories and you'll have your answer--it would work much, much better than what we have!

This situation we're in of Big Pharma advertising on television and getting people to demand drugs of their doctors (it must be harmless--I saw it on TV!) is, I think, a far cry from perfection. People should be skeptical when it comes to deciding what they swallow, imo. And the FDA is obviously not helping in this department.

fgd
10-08-2010, 03:19 PM
Basically how the electrical device industry works today as far as safety. UL, ETL, and a couple other independent companies test things for safety and certify them.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-08-2010, 07:32 PM
This is like asking the question how would we know what cars to buy if we had no State-regulatory body. Hello? Have you never heard of Consumer Reports? This is quite frankly, a non-issue in libertarian realms as it is one of the quite easily and readily demolished arguments.

GreenLP
10-08-2010, 08:10 PM
Thanks for all your responses. They relieved all my worries about this topic.

johngr
10-09-2010, 05:20 AM
No, people wouldn't buy the product in large numbers unless it has been tested by a reputable source, beyond that a reputable source that a large number of people trust. Right now there is something called moral hazard, where people assume that because the drug is on the market it must be safe...afterall, government has tested it out and said it is ok, right? I don't trust government, but a lot of people do. If you took away the FDA, then people would have to find another trustworthy source to find out whether a particular medication is safe. Right now they are being tricked. They can be tricked by a private company, but people will naturally be more cautious of private companies and private companies don't have any sort of "authority" over the market so they have much less power. Also consider that with the FDA, look at how many people take dangerous drugs because the FDA says they are OK. I think it would be better if people were more cautious, take the FDA out of the picture.




People tend to stick to safer, more natural substances when possible. If opium was widely available and legal, then people who want to use opiates would tend towards using opium instead of heroin or oxycontin. It would be cheaper, safer, less addictive and more natural. Heroin is extremely toxic, addictive and the main reason people use it is because it is more available on the street.. and the only reason for that is because it is worth more money per square inch, and most opiates are flown in on planes. It is very risky, so the more $$ worth of product you can fit onto the plane, that is what is going to make it's way over here.

In South America, it is still relatively common for people to use coca rather than cocaine, even though both substances are relatively common. Coca is more safe, less addictive and it allows people to be productive.. but it isn't worth shipping it over on a plane in leaf form with all the risk when it can be broken down into powder form which is much more lucrative.

Cannabis is a great example of how people tend to choose safer, less addictive substances as it is the most widely used illegal substance.. it is also the safest and least toxic illegal substance, it is what the market demands.

Exactly

Free Market

opuim
beer/wine
dexidrine
patent medicine cocaine tincture or coca-cola

Prohibition

heroin
nearly pure grain alcohol
methamphetamine
crack cocaine

Zippyjuan
10-10-2010, 07:41 PM
Big pharma and big medicine could do whatever they want to. Sure you could try to sue them if they make or sold you something which either failed to offer you any improvement in your condition or even make it worse or kill you, but they have bigger pockets to fight any lawsuits you could file so you would lose them. Bribe doctors to push their products (which they do already anyways). A private testing company would not have the resources to properly test long term effects of drugs or medicines on people. Drug companies would rather not have to pay for long term studies either- that cuts into their bottom line.

tangent4ronpaul
10-11-2010, 10:26 AM
In the early 1960's the FDA had no regulatory control over drug companies. At the time the time between discovery of a drug to market was about 2 years and cost 10's of thousands of dollars. It was tested enough so the company was satisfied that they would not get sued. Medicine was cheap and readily available.

Today, under FDA regulations, drugs take over a decade to be "blessed" so they are allowed on the market, it costs on average between 750 Million and 1.2 Billion to go through this process. The drug companies spend $2 in advertising for every $1 spent on R&D, but blame the high costs of R&D (Read FDA BULLSHIT!) for why drugs are so expensive. For anything prescription, you have to go to a doctor at a cost of $70-$150 a pop to get a permission slip to buy the massively overpriced drugs.

Early in the last century, drugs were all over the counter. Tincture of opium - no problem, "poppy tea" was a common folk remedy that was widely used, coca-cola had cocaine in it... Odd that the literature on addiction and how bad certain drugs were for you seems to be completely missing for that period of history... The archivists must have misplaced it or something... :rolleyes:

In most parts of the world all drugs are over the counter, though due to pressure from the US Gvmt some of the "fun" ones are restricted in some places. It's odd that there are no reports about the heroine addicts lining up at the pharmacies every morning to buy their daily vial of morphine.

In South America coco leaves are chewed by most and where poppies are grown most people carry a bit of opium around with them to both treat pain and for pleasure.

OMG! - IT'S AN EPIDEMIC! - WE MUST PUT A STOP TO THIS IMMEDIATELY!

-t

heavenlyboy34
10-11-2010, 07:15 PM
danno and tangent pretty much nailed it. Alternative methods would be allowed to compete with allopathy, and would likely prevail.

Greenbeard
10-12-2010, 06:59 AM
This is like asking the question how would we know what cars to buy if we had no State-regulatory body. Hello? Have you never heard of Consumer Reports? This is quite frankly, a non-issue in libertarian realms as it is one of the quite easily and readily demolished arguments.

Would the pharmaceutical version of Consumer Reports be running its own multi-phase randomized clinical trials to determine the effectiveness of each new drug?

heavenlyboy34
10-12-2010, 08:21 AM
Would the pharmaceutical version of Consumer Reports be running its own multi-phase randomized clinical trials to determine the effectiveness of each new drug?

Likely, as they do this kind of thing with foods and other products already. Even if the editors don't have the ability to run these tests personally, it could be farmed out to a college of medicine or something.

Jordan
10-12-2010, 08:22 AM
Fun statistic:

10 times more money is spent in the "Office of New Drugs" (read: regulatory pencil pushers) than is actually spent testing the medicines and their effects.

TonySutton
10-12-2010, 08:32 AM
I think my company pays UL $10k to test each new type of product we manufacture. Most of our customers require the UL designation on all equipment they put in their networks.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-12-2010, 09:19 AM
http://mises.org/daily/4775

This seems pertinent to the discussion at hand. Also, Mary Ruwart has some fantastic work in this field.

tangent4ronpaul
10-12-2010, 03:17 PM
I picked up some pseudafed recently as I was at the pharmacy for something else and was otherwise out of it. It's a great decongestant that my family has used as long as I remember. Nothing else works as well.

The whole process with the log and ID the clerk filling out 5-6 fields took 5 minutes. There were 15 entries per page and a good half inch of pages had been filled out - double sided. You can do the math. Talk about an unfunded mandate on a business! - not to mention a customers time.

I asked the clerk if she thought this actually helped. She said "it's the law".

Also because of meth they took draino off the shelves for a while. It was being used to adjust pH in meth recipes - like nothing else will do that :rolleyes: The chem they tried to replace it with was so abysmal at unclogging plumbing they had to bring draino back.

F'ing jack booted regulators and nanny state know it alls!

-t

UtahApocalypse
10-12-2010, 03:24 PM
The how:


Several occurrences would unfold:

1. One or more private certification companies would begin and rate pharmaceuticals. Before people bought a drug, they would look for their favorite certification company to rank it (which the Pharma company would pay for) and they'd get a rank. This is how the Organic Industry and Gluten Free industry work. Even with the USDA Certified organic logo, it is all private enterprises. Organicans know which private certifiers are the best and go for brands with that.

2. Lawsuits. Yes, some people might die, but without an FDA, Big Pharma would be forced to pay for damages their drugs cause. Right now, most of the time, the FDA can mitigate the damage to the drug companies and sometimes, as with the Vaccine Court, have the public pay for the damages. With all of the new supplement competition, drug companies will have lost their monopoly and won't be able to afford releasing dangerous drugs or else they could very easily go out of business.

3. Private consumer watchdogs such as Consumer Reports. Others would likely begin focusing more on drugs as well without an FDA. If they believed a drug was harmful or useless, they'd report on it. It is already a fact that a segment of the population will pay for consumer product information, such as Consumer Reports, so imagine publications or websites focused solely on drugs isn't hard to imagine.

4. Importation of drugs. The FDA is the biggest barrier to foreign competition in the pharmaceutical industry. Apparently, free trade is great...unless drugs are involved. Canada has an FDA, so their drugs will be imported for far less and will have been tested. Same for other countries around the world. That will also force our American prices down. Can anyone say "who needs health insurance to pay for cheap drugs?"

5. Food companies will be able to tell the truth about their products. Vitamin C cures gout, we pretty much know that, but orange producers legally can't say that because of the FDA. There are many other fruits out there with major health benefits. Notice how all of the packaged junk foods like Cheerios can have health benefits but raw foods can't? Without an FDA, producers of Kale, blueberries, etc can tout their high ORAC antioxidant values without fear of retribution. With this new marketing, a surge in raw, healthy foods would likely take place causing people to be healthier.

The list goes on and on.

The example:


Simply look to UL for your answer!