Posted by ed_uk on December 10, 2004, at 12:37:00
Hi,
What do people think about the way that regulatory authorities such as the FDA and the MHRA restrict access to medicines?
Currently, drugs are approved/licensed based on their supposed safety, efficacy and quality. Obviously, no drug is going to be completely safe. Some are more dangerous than others. The problem with the regulatory authorities it that once a drug is approved many people assume that it will have a good safety record. Unfortunately, many approved drugs have serious side effects, many of which are recognised many years later. Some drugs are then withdrawn from the market. Although withdrawing drugs may improve safety, it also restricts the number of treatments available to seriously ill patients.
Although the FDA has a role in regulating quality control in the pharm industry, how useful do you think it is in assessing safety and efficacy? ........particularly when you consider that the info about new drugs comes straight from the pharm companies own research!
Do you agree with the way that the FDA restricts access to drugs which are on the market in other countries? Once accurate information is available, to what extent do you think it should be up to the individual doctors and patients to decide which medicines have an acceptable risk/benefit ratio? Should 'withdrawn' drugs be made more readily available to people who have failed to respond to other treatments?
Ed.
poster:ed_uk
thread:427259
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20041206/msgs/427259.html