Why government is here

hornpharmd

5,000+ Posts
www.cnn.com/2012/09/01/health/germany-thalidomide-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This is just an example. There are many important functions for government. The FDA serves an important purpose and without it who knows what our healthcare system would look like today and how risky it would be to purchase medications.

In 1938 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed which required drugs to be proven safe to be sold. It gave the FDA inspection authority and increased regulatory authority.

In 1951 the Durham -Humphrey Ammendment passed which created the OTC and legend drug category distinctions. No longer could all medications be purchased over the counter.

In 1962 the Kefauver-Harris Ammendment passed which now required informed consent for clinical trials, required manufacturers to show effectiveness as well as safety, required adverse event reporting to the FDA. It also required manufacturers to submit a new drug approval (NDA) to get drug approval for marketing purposes. It increased manufacturing inspections to once every 2 years. This was sparked by the European Thalomid concerns.

These are some of the earliest most important legislative actions taken to strengthen the FDA and improve safety for consumers. A summary of other actions can be found here:



As I continue to hear tea party candidates and elected officials discuss how they would like to get rid of the FDA or other government programs that protect consumers, I can only think of what country we would have without those laws and agencies to protect us. Of course many of these politicians will not come out and say straight out that they want to completely remove some of these agencies but they would like to severely weaken them so that they will not be able to execute their responsibilities effectively. We have already seen this happen with the SEC....do we really want it to happen with the FDA?

I wish we were having more discussions on the real issues such as the budget, the deficit, the war, healthcare, and what functions should government be doing and what should they leave to the private sector. Instead we are talking about Clint Eastwood and Ann Romney.
 
the FDa isn't officially on his platform, although elimination of the federal departments of Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development are. he wants to reform the FDA which I agree with but he also proposes sharply reducing the government's regulation of medications and health supplements by reducing the role of, and ultimately eliminating, the Food and Drug Administration.
 
Right to know what? Most consumers don't know anything even with the info out there. The FDA regulates the pharmaceutical industry as one of its duties. In doing it protects consumers who do not know. It serves an important government function. If you severely downsized and weakened the FDA you are not allowing the FDA to do its core funcitons.

This is an example of why we need government in certain areas to protect citizens and consumers.
 
You can retract your degragation of the Tea Party and getting rid of the FDA, that is baseless. I have never ever heard of that......

The other departments, especially, education, energy and Housing and Urban development , yes.

The Federal government does not have a clue what education is needed in Dallas Texas vs. Cedar Rapids Iowa.
 
I am not necessarily in favor of getting rid of the FDA. However, if we did as a nation it wouldn't necessarily mean that we would all of sudden be unprotected from dangerous drugs.

There are many private organizations that exist to protect consumers. I work in the electrical/electronic appliance industry and safety isn't maintained in this industry by the government. It is safeguarded by the UL. The electrical power industry is safeguarded by IEEE. It would take time but if the FDA vanished tomorrow, a private standards organization most likely would be put together. So let's not claim that Ron Paul or anyone else wants US citizens to ingest untested, harmful pharmaceuticals. That's pure speculation.
 
Ron Paul has always advocated that the markets can do a better job of regulating themselves than the government can, because, if your product is harmful, people will stop buying it. Economics.

I am still waiting for the FDA to "evaluate" half the products on the shelf that never seem to get "evaluated."
 
The dept of education and dept of interior have zero value to the country. Their existence is nothing more than a boondoggle.
 
The unit production cost of drugs is very small, so they can sell them at almost any price and make money on those incremental sales. The major cost is the years of development and testing. We pay for all of that in the US.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top