31–40 of 101 posts
If this was published on Medium, I would have highlighted this paragraph: "On the human side, the FDA mostly considers their responsibility to be to stop unsafe or ineffective drugs from entering the marketplace, and believes that allowing safe and effective drugs to enter the marketplace is a secondary goal."
PBS has a great documentary on it. https://www.pbs.org/video/dr-harvey-wiley-father-pure-food-s...
If this was published on Medium, I would have highlighted this paragraph: "On the human side, the FDA mostly considers their responsibility to be to stop unsafe or ineffective drugs from entering the marketplace, and believes that allowing safe and effective drugs to enter the marketplace is a secondary goal."
If this was published on Medium, I would have highlighted this paragraph: "On the human side, the FDA mostly considers their responsibility to be to stop unsafe or ineffective drugs from entering the marketplace, and believes that allowing safe and effective drugs to enter the marketplace is a secondary goal."
If this was published on Medium, I would have highlighted this paragraph: "On the human side, the FDA mostly considers their responsibility to be to stop unsafe or ineffective drugs from entering the marketplace, and believes that allowing safe and effective drugs to enter the marketplace is a secondary goal."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought this is paraphrased, but this is lifted straight from the article. This is so incredibly wrong I simply couldn't get past this statement.
Is it? It seems like it's just acknowledging a objectively true reality. In the US getting sued for failed human medical intervention is common and costly. Courts (and juries I'm sure) don't look on animal lives with the same value as they do human lives. You might have a different value system, but the article isn't talking about your moral system, it's talking about objective reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>veterinary surgery is so much cheaper (i.e. affordable to ordinary people) than human surgery.... ..."in the USA". At a guess, I'd say it's the complete opposite in Europe with it's pesky human healthcare systems.
To be fair, human surgery also costs a lot in Europe. It's just not paid by the patient. It's not healthcare in itself that is free but health insurance.
I suspect scale may be a factor here.
If this was published on Medium, I would have highlighted this paragraph: "On the human side, the FDA mostly considers their responsibility to be to stop unsafe or ineffective drugs from entering the marketplace, and believes that allowing safe and effective drugs to enter the marketplace is a secondary goal."
Yes, they have to do this. The cost of a few bad drug approvals that cause large-scale loss of confidence in the pharma industry would be devastating- including consequential effects on good medications.
We can imagine lots of alternatives to what the FDA currently does - a partial approval pipeline immediately comes to mind in which the degree to which a drug is approved is commensurate to our confidence in the safety/efficacy of the drug. A different system could have different levels of approval on efficacy and safety. A different system could attempt to maximize lives saved (or utility years) and would look very different yet.
Not only is it common, but it's often assumed that it'll happen. It seems almost lucky when cats don't get it.
If an epidemic like that were affecting humans, a trillion dollars would be spent to fight it. But since it's cats, we just stay silent.
I wish there were more commercial incentive. I don't know how there would be, but I hope one day there will be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? It seems like it's just acknowledging a objectively true reality. In the US getting sued for failed human medical intervention is common and costly. Courts (and juries I'm sure) don't look on animal lives with the same value as they do human lives. You might have a different value system, but the article isn't talking about your moral system, it's talking about objective reality.
I think the person you're replying to is using the term 'wrong' morally.
Just wanted to leave a plea for someone, anyone, to please start working on FeLV and FIV vaccines. Cats normally live 16 years. FeLV/FIV takes them at age 2 or 3. It happened to both of mine. Not only is it common, but it's often assumed that it'll happen. It seems almost lucky when cats don't get it. If an epidemic like that were affecting humans, a trillion dollars would be spent to fight it. But since it's cats, w…
Which is to say you're correct but it's not a hypothetical.