Comment by 9864250 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 9864250 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't think the FDA has saved nearly as many people as it has killed, but it's going to be impossible to get good statistics on either variable. "Saving" someone against their will is not a good thing, so even if the FDA had saved more people than it killed, it wouldn't justify its coercive powers.

I agree that the medical insurance industry in the US is extremely dysfunctional (in large part because of regulations), but people have much more recourse when they are harmed by an insurance company compared to a government agency. I doubt more people die as a result of insurance companies decisions compared to the FDA's decisions. I can't find a good estimate for the number of deaths caused by insurance companies, one study from 2009 estimated 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage in the US (these would be more comparable to those who die because of the FDA because they similarly lack recourse)[0], this is probably much lower than the FDA's death toll. FDA was also likely a contributing factor in the deaths of many of those who died due to lack of health coverage because the FDA's licencing costs and the slow and arbitrary way it processes applications are a significant reason for the high drug prices in the US.

[0]: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-fin...

> "Saving" someone against their will is not a good thing, so even if the FDA had saved more people than it killed, it wouldn't justify its coercive powers

Is it against their will though? People want someone making sure pharmaceuticals and other medical companies aren't doing dangerous things. That's why the FDA was created. People forget that most of these agencies like the FDA and EPA weren't created out of thin air, they were addressing real problems affecting real people.

> but people have much more recourse when they are harmed by an insurance company compared to a government agency

Strongly disagree based on real life experience. If the FDA is blocking some life saving treatment do due to unnecessary red tape I can harass my congressman or senator. Oh sure if it's just me they probably won't care unless my story is particularly poignant, but get a few people writing them and they'll take notice (seriously people underestimate how important writing your representatives is). My insurance company doesn't give a shit. My sister has severe MS. Her doctor prescribed a medication meant for people like her, her insurance company said no, they wanted her on a different medication that had never been studied for MS, much less approved. She appealed, the insurance company denied the appeal. The hospital appealed twice, denied both times. A lawyer advised there wasn't much point in fighting further. There's no recourse against the insurance company beyond being sufficiently wealthy to either not need them, or challenge their lawyers.

I trend pretty libertarian when it comes to people dealing with their own bodies. Want to drink formaldehyde because you think it'll cure your cancer? You do you. But if a company wants to sell it as a cure they should have to do some bare minimum of testing to ensure it works and won't just give you more cancer. That's the FDAs job.

Yes, it's against their will. The people dying because the FDA doesn't let them access lifesaving treatments that are available in other countries are not committing suicide. They are dying because doctors and pharmacists would go to prison if they tried to save their lives. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who wanted to live and would have lived if they lived elsewhere, or if the FDA did not have the power to stop them from accessing treatment.

I'm sorry for what happened to your sister. As I said earlier, the US health insurance system is extremely dysfunctional. I do however think you are grossly overestimating the effectiveness of contacting members of Congress. They neither have any reason nor any ability to help with the FDA or most other things. I doubt most members of Congress could even do anything (except travel aboard) to save their own life if they needed a drug the FDA had not approved, and they did not qualify under the very limited right-to-try law (that was still a step in the right direction).

Unless you are wealthy enough to compete with the pharmaceutical companies that lobby to maintain the current rules, you can have no real influence over the FDA. You might as well write the insurance company's shareholders, and get the same polite version of "no, we like money" back.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com