TexasCHLforum.com

Do true libertarians believe in having an FDA or should we rely on free market and the court system to address medical device and pharma issues?

I think of myself as a libertarian but I am only speaking for myself. My basic philosophy of government is that we, the people, form governments to protect us from those who would prey upon us. Preying upon us includes armed criminals, foreign governments, and the unarmed criminals who use fraud to harm us.

Given that, I prefer to not have the FDA in the mix and allow the market supplemented by the courts hearing disputes to solve us. But I freely admit that the FDA is a legitimate use of the government's power. I have problems with the way our current FDA is doing things, but a properly structured FDA could require proper testing before allowing something on the market. I think it should only require proof that the device or medicine is not harmful and the ingredients making it are as listed, and should not require proof that it actually does what is claimed. If I want to try an experimental product, I should be allowed to without having to jump through extra hoops other than my paying for it.

mojo84 wrote: Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:20 pm Do true libertarians believe in having and FDA or should we rely on free market and the court system to address medical device and pharma issues?

No FDA. Free market, court systems, licensing and professional opinion of your own doctor.

Combine that with a regulation free (or light) insurance market across the whole US and healthcare just became very affordable for all.

The left can't stand the truth.

But, that's their choice.

I couldn't care less regarding their hate...

srothstein wrote: Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:32 pm I think of myself as a libertarian but I am only speaking for myself. My basic philosophy of government is that we, the people, form governments to protect us from those who would prey upon us. Preying upon us includes armed criminals, foreign governments, and the unarmed criminals who use fraud to harm us.

Given that, I prefer to not have the FDA in the mix and allow the market supplemented by the courts hearing disputes to solve us. But I freely admit that the FDA is a legitimate use of the government's power.

From a libertarian philosophical standpoint, the government shouldn't engage in prior restraint of free trade.

From a non libertarian standpoint, it may be a legitimate exercise of a state's power to regulate food and drugs within it's own borders but the feds literally have no constitutional authority to regulate food or drugs (or guns, etc) within a state.

Then there's realpolitik.

If the FDA wasn't strenuously and successfully lobbied, I would trust them.

As it is, they are successfully lobbied so I don't trust them even a little...

They are in the pockets of the medical device mfgs.

The FDA isn't perfect but if you take Valsartan you may want to know that the FDA has recalled it because of cancer causing contaminants. My wife previously took this med. China still ships lead contaminated products to us. We need an agency to oversee these kinds of problems. It's not just "free market" and let the patient and doctor settle it. How would any doctor know that a medicine is contaminated? There are realistic and legitimate reasons to have a watchdog agency but there has to be a balance in risk vs. benefit. Trump's new policy of allowing terminal patients to try new drugs even if all the risks are not known is a good start.

Objective review of the film by a knowlegible industry professional:

The Tip of the Spear: A Review of "The Bleeding Edge" and What's Waiting Behind Door #2:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tip-spea ... door-balch

I trust Amtrak more than I trust the FDA.

Bitter Clinger wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:22 pm Objective review of the film by a knowlegible industry professional:

The Tip of the Spear: A Review of "The Bleeding Edge" and What's Waiting Behind Door #2:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tip-spea ... door-balch

Just read it, and thanks for the link. I think it was fair and balanced.....and not that far off the mark from my original reactions to the movie, and my response here....with one exception. The exception was my understanding of and reaction to 510K before the movie (which was nonexistent), after the movie (which was a sense of alarm), and then after reading the article (feeling better informed).