|
|
|
Jewish World Review June 1, 2005 / 23 Iyar, 5765 By protecting us from bad things, government protects us from good things, too By John Stossel
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
It's natural to fear freedom. Tell most Americans that we'd be
better off if we clear-cut the regulatory jungle and simply let the market
decide what products are sold, and you're likely to be told how dangerous
the world would be. Most people think government keeps us safe. It's why the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is regarded as absolutely necessary. It
protects us from snake-oil sellers. Who could argue with that?
I will, because years of consumer reporting have taught me that
the regulators, by protecting us from bad things, protect us from good
things, too. When we let the government use force to limit our choices, we
deprive ourselves of innovation that makes life better. Even genuinely
compassionate officials can literally regulate us to death.
In 1962, the FDA didn't let American women take the tranquilizer
Thalidomide, while in Europe, women who took it sometimes gave birth to
children with no arms or legs. The Thalidomide tragedy is cited as an
example of how useful the FDA is, and we're all glad American babies were
protected.
But after the Thalidomide success, the FDA grew like a malignant
tumor. Getting a new drug approved now takes 12 to 15 years. It takes that
long because the FDA wants to be extra sure every drug is safe and
effective. That seems reasonable. But this vigilant pursuit of safety also
kills people.
Some years ago, the FDA held a news conference and proudly
announced, "This new heart drug we're approving will save 14,000 American
lives a year!" No one stood up at the press conference to ask, "Doesn't this
mean you killed 14,000 people last year — and the year before — by keeping
it off the market?" Reporters don't think that way, but the FDA's
announcement did mean that. Thousands will die this year while other
therapies wait for approval.
You may want to wait. Many of us want to be absolutely sure a
drug is safe before we take it. It's natural to want the "experts" to
protect us. But why isn't the choice left to us? Why does the FDA get to
force us to wait and, in some cases, die, when there are experimental drugs,
however risky, that might save our lives?
I interviewed Janet Cheadle, a young girl suffering from a form
of cancer that, left untreated, would kill her before she grew up. Her
parents wanted to take her to a doctor who claimed he had a treatment that
might help her. But the FDA ruled that Janet was not allowed to pursue his
treatment because the FDA hadn't sanctioned it. Maybe the wiser move was not
to try the treatment. But shouldn't that have been Janet's choice? She was
dying. It was her body and her life. Shouldn't she have been allowed to
experiment if that was what she and her parents wanted? Ultimately, she was
allowed — but only after her father testified before Congress.
But what about the thousands of lives that would be saved? Don't
those lives count?
No.
The bureaucrats and reporters focus on the victims of
innovation. The fen-phen deaths were on the front pages of most every
newspaper. We put Thalidomide babies on magazine covers. But what is not
seen often matters more. The fat substitute or the new heart drug might save
thousands. But whom would I photograph? We don't know which of us might be
saved.
Am I suggesting we just junk the FDA and let the market take
over? That sounds chaotic and threatening, and it's not about to happen. But
there is a better way. That's next week's column.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
© 2005, by JFS Productions, Inc. Distributed by Creators Syndicate, Inc. |
Arnold Ahlert | ||||||||||||
