Sometimes President Trump Gets It Right

[MennoSota]

President Trump signed the "Right to Try" bill into law.
Having watched my two nephews and niece all die because of Spinal Muscular Atrophy, I welcome this law. There were some drugs that could have helped (Spinraza was in testing) had my brother and his wife been able to try them. Instead, I hope that other families get the chance to do whatever they can to try heal a loved one.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/30/trump-signs-right-to-try-legislation-on-experimental-medicines.html

 

[ok doser]

:thumb:

 

[Traditio]

This law was not a good idea. It just gives the green light for drug companies to sell snake oil.

 

[ok doser]

many people benefit from snake oil (see: placebo effect)

 

[MennoSota]

This law was not a good idea. It just gives the green light for drug companies to sell snake oil.

When the outcome is a 100% death by illness, having the opportunity to try a promising drug is worth the try. Had Spinraza been an option, I would still likely be spending time with my brother's children.
It's not like the FDA won't be doing their job. Trials still have to take place. However, now those trials may get more candidates.

 

[Traditio]

When the outcome is a 100% death by illness, having the opportunity to try a promising drug is worth the try. Had Spinraza been an option, I would still likely be spending time with my brother's children.
It's not like the FDA won't be doing their job. Trials still have to take place. However, now those trials may get more candidates.

You have to think in terms of incentives. Yes, in that one case, perhaps that particular drug might have saved lives.

But what kind of incentives does it create when you pass a law saying: "Patients can 'try' treatments that haven't been approved by the FDA"?

 

[MennoSota]

You have to think in terms of incentives. Yes, in that one case, perhaps that particular drug might have saved lives.

But what kind of incentives does it create when you pass a law saying: "Patients can 'try' treatments that haven't been approved by the FDA"?

It gives incentive to the FDA to improve their process. Drug companies will not want to kill people with their drugs. That kind of publicity is not good.
When the decision being made is between two bad outcomes or a third unproven outcome, is it right to tell someone that they can only choose bad #1 or bad #2?

 

[Traditio]

It gives incentive to the FDA to improve their process. Drug companies will not want to kill people with their drugs. That kind of publicity is not good.

This is the standard libertarian/right wing argument against regulation as such, and it's a stupid argument.

When the decision being made is between two bad outcomes or a third unproven outcome, is it right to tell someone that they can only choose bad #1 or bad #2?

I'll take outcome which is bad for some people but good for most people. If that means that some people are denied potentially life saving treatment, but we are ensured that all of the treatments being prescribed actually have been proven effective, yes, that's a tradeoff which we should be willing to take.

 

[MennoSota]

This is the standard libertarian/right wing argument against regulation as such, and it's a stupid argument.



I'll take outcome which is bad for some people but good for most people. If that means that some people are denied potentially life saving treatment, but we are ensured that all of the treatments being prescribed actually have been proven effective, yes, that's a tradeoff which we should be willing to take.

First, it's economics 101. Nothing libertarian about basic capitalism.
Second, you make little sense. The process of testing and then testing again will still continue.
I realize I'm talking to a person who is ignorant regarding having to make decisions where any outcome is a bad one. When you have been faced with such a circumstance you will have more legitimacy. Until then, you're just a puppet talking.

 

[ok doser]

one problem with this approach is that it forces health care professionals to give advice on substances for which little is known, including potential benefits, potential negative side effects, interactions with other drugs, etc

 

[MennoSota]

one problem with this approach is that it forces health care professionals to give advice on substances for which little is known, including potential benefits, potential negative side effects, interactions with other drugs, etc

The consultation will be done as a team. It's not like you just talk to the night nurse and get the meds.

 

[glorydaz]

This is the standard libertarian/right wing argument against regulation as such, and it's a stupid argument.



I'll take outcome which is bad for some people but good for most people. If that means that some people are denied potentially life saving treatment, but we are ensured that all of the treatments being prescribed actually have been proven effective, yes, that's a tradeoff which we should be willing to take.

That is just plain stupid. The choice is between try or die. How hard is that?

 

[ok doser]

one problem with this approach is that it forces health care professionals to give advice on substances for which little is known, including potential benefits, potential negative side effects, interactions with other drugs, etc

The consultation will be done as a team. It's not like you just talk to the night nurse and get the meds.

a team that will still have little knowledge of potential benefits, potential negative side effects, interactions with other drugs, etc, because there won't be any studies published, there won't be any entries in the Davis Drug Guide, there won't be any manufacturer's usage sheets provided - there will be anecdotal evidence and advice from non-professionals on the internet

physicians will be very reluctant to give advice on these substances in any but the most extreme cases

 

[Traditio]

That is just plain stupid. The choice is between try or die. How hard is that?

No. The choice for that ONE PATIENT is try or die.

I don't care about that one patient. I care about the more general state of affairs. It's better that the one patient die than that we have untested drugs on the market (possibly resulting in even more patients dying, and not only that, but being swindled out of their money in the process).

 

[Traditio]

If you wanted a decent solution to this problem, you should be in favor of a proposal by Ted Cruz (and I rarely agree with Ted Cruz about anything): if a drug or treatment is approved by the equivalent of the FDA in another developed first world nation, it should be automatically approved by the FDA here.

 

[drbrumley]

All hail the all knowing State, huh Trad?

 

[Traditio]

All hail the all knowing State, huh Trad?

Corporations maximize profits at all costs. If that means that people die, that means people die. You can see this clearly in the case of the automobile industry. Even if they are aware of a defect, and a potentially life-threatening defect, they still do a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether or not it's even worth it to do anything about it.

Lives don't matter to corporations. Profits, and only profits, matter.

If you trust a corporation over a government agency, you are just foolish.

 

[Traditio]

And for the record, if you DON'T think that pharmaceutical companies would push dubious products if they were unregulated, you would have to be the biggest moron on the planet. This already happens with the (largely unregulated) health supplements industry.

 

[ok doser]

This already happens with the (largely unregulated) health supplements industry.

from which many people claim to derive a benefit

and which cause a great deal of difficulty with health care professionals when trying to sort out side effects in patients on multiple medications

 

[Traditio]

from which many people claim to derive a benefit

Often on a purely anecdotal, unverifiable basis.

That might be fine for the health supplements industry, but it's not fine for pharmaceuticals.

and which cause a great deal of difficulty with health care professionals when trying to sort out side effects in patients on multiple medications

Yes, yes they do.

Does it really make sense to make that problem even worse with untested, unverified pharmaceuticals?