Should drug companies be allowed to market new medicines without prior approval of the fda?

[arashmenalagha]

Should drug companies be allowed to market new medicines without prior approval of the fda? If the drugs prove to be unsafe or ineffective, consumers would have the right to sue drug companies for actual and punitive damage?

How would you feel if you ingested or used a product without being fda approved would you even care? How do you feel about having the fda decide what you should and shouldn't take?

I wouldn't agree one bit nuh-uh!!

I agree the drug companies should do this.

Other

I think I agree with some aspect but disagree with others?

Updates

+1 y

A drug being FDA approved means nothing to me. It doesn't make me feel anymore safe than a non FDA approved drug.

[Malcom_Reynolds]

I'm actually kinda torn on this one.

On the one hand, I think they should, but just have to clearly state in any advertisement and on any packaging it comes in, "Not FDA approved" or if it is in the process of getting approved "Pending FDA approval."

On the other, I question that if this happens, would it take away from the necessity of getting FDA approval. I mean initially anything not yet approved by the FDA would have a marketing disadvantage, but if it slowly caught on, it could skew pharmaceutical companies in favour of never getting FDA approval to the point where it could become common to take non-FDA approved drugs because most are like that.

A middle ground thought had occurred with the idea of allowing them with the required warnings, but not allowing them for children. That is any medication meant for someone under the age of 18 would have to be FDA approved. And any medication not FDA approved would not be allowed to be given to children.

I think my vote goes to the middle ground. This still gives a lot of emphasis to FDA approval, most prescription and doctor recommended medications would likely still require FDA approval, and the over the counter stuff that people take for every little inconvenience they experience would be for the adults who are old enough to make their own decisions.

[arashmenalagha]

Hi great answer, Isn't the idea of something being FDA approved misleading? Almost to the point where people would care if the product is not FDA approved. Its as if people wouldn't trust a natural herb over a drug that a scientist created in a lab. Why do you think they would do that?

[Malcom_Reynolds]

People shouldn't automatically trust a natural herb over something created in the lab. I think it's a big misconception that because something is natural it's better for you. Hemlock is natural. There is an argument to be made for that when it comes to food, but not medicine. I think doctor recommendations and FDA approval are more important. Besides, where people will end up falling victim to undervaluing FDA approval is from marketing.

[moaterboat]

The FDA kills thousands of people every year by denying them the drugs that could save their lives. Yes, in some cases, unapproved drugs may actually be detrimental, but when a patient is terminally ill, they should have the choice to take that risk. Instead, the FDA puts drugs through an approval process that takes years and costs the drug manufacturers millions, if not billions of dollars. These delays cost far more lives than they save.

Personally, I think the FDA should still be in the business of approving drugs, but it drugs not approved by the FDA should not be outlawed. It is absurd to think that cigarettes and alcohol are legal, and they are obviously harmful to the body, but some medicines aren't just because there is a chance that they will be harmful to the body.

This video shows the unacceptable cost in human life of this absurd program.

https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=Dan1LFrzyII

[Settingemstraight]

stole my answer

[Settingemstraight]

Do you read stossel? Cause that sounds almost exactly like one of his points in Give Me A Break

[madmisskelly]

I think the FDA should get more involved in limiting the type of phrasing drug companies can use. For example, drug companies can't make claims that are not evaluated by the FDA and they can't say their drug cures anything. There are loopholes to this, the same as there are with food and labeling there- things they can say that are misleading but aren't illegal.

I think the drug companies should not be allowed to make these misleading claims, and this would require the FDA to only allow approved drugs/vitamins on the market.

[Anonymous]

I'm from the UK, so our drugs are monitored by someone else, but if I was American, I would want drugs to be approved by the FDA first. Even without drugs being approved, there are drugs with bad side effects being sold.

[DutchAtheist]

You should google 'diethylstilbestrol'.

A drug that was actually FDA approved and caused massive health issues, not only to the people taking it, but also their children and nowadays, their grandchildren.

Do not underestimate the power of drugs, they can damage you for generations, in ways you can't even imagine. Precaution is key.

[arashmenalagha]

I believe that your answer is really helpful and it sounds like you care.

[TheStaff_Sergeant]

FDA approval does not guarantee that a drug will not be harmful or have dangerous side effects. If the risks are determined to be moderate, and the benefits of a drug is effective for it's suggested use, then the FDA will approve it.

[Settingemstraight]

A drug should say if it's FDA approved but I should be allowed to by distilled Myna Bird sh*t if I want to and believe in it

[Temporary46]

Birth defects.