Humans are demonstrably terrible at long-term risk analysis even when given full information. Hence, helmet laws. But we are even worse when we do not have full information, and when it comes to medicine, it's often not possible for us to even be fully informed. Personally, I don't want to have to ask my doctor what kind of clinical trials a drug he's prescribing has been through. If he gives me an antibiotic, I want to know that it has been approved by the FDA.
If you have a condition that there are experimental treatments for, try to get into one of the clinical trials.
Personally, I don't want to have to ask my doctor what kind of clinical trials a drug he's prescribing has been through.
I always do that! Why don't you do it today? Do you believe doctors and the FDA a flawless? Do you care if a drug has been on the market for decades versus one that's just been approved? Do you think that matters?
I suppose this does indicate a deeper difference between the intuitive assumptions of libertarians versus more pro-centralized control people.
I've often found that people who are more pro-regulation also have a very strong faith in the goodness and wisdom of officials.
Of course I don't believe the FDA and doctors are flawless. But I trust that for something like an antibiotic that yes, they do know better than I do. Most people, myself included, don't know much about medicine. Most people, myself included, don't know much about most things. Civilization works through specialization, which means that most of the time, you will have to trust another person who has specialized in something you have not.
If the drug in question is not as pedestrian as an antibiotic, I may research it. But when I made the decision to take it, I would factor in the significant fact that the FDA had approved it. I consider this fact significant because the FDA is so strict about what drugs and procedures pass muster.
There's a probabilistic argument that I think you are skipping. Given what I know and what the FDA knows, I find it more likely that the FDA's decision on such things as what drugs are safe for what circumstances will maximize my well-being.
I am not sure what you mean? Before we did not have things like the USDA or FDA.
If we maintain that it is illegal to claim regulatory approval unless you actually have it, then that gives us a choice (between tested/approved and not) which we have not had before, and don't have now.
What we have done, is replace all lack of regulation and testing with a universal mandate for extremely long and expensive regulation and testing.
I feel like everyone is interpreting my point as a dichotomy between everything or nothing, between the situation as it is today or total anarchy. But that is not at all what I am saying.
If you have a condition that there are experimental treatments for, try to get into one of the clinical trials.