ra: I still don't see why a pharmaceutical company would bother certifying their drugs. You can get the drug on the market years faster and cheaper if it's uncertified.
Certification is basically some organisation with a lot of reputation vouching for the qualities of the product. Since a lot if not most value of a company depends on it's reputation, businesses in all industries try to protect it. you lose reutation - you are dead. Just look what happened to Arthur Andersen!
So I would be perfectly fine if a large old company with great reputation like Phizer tested it's own products. If a company is new and unkown, it would need someone reputable to underwrite it - like FDA or maybe The Mayo Clinic or Harward Medical Center or whatever. Plenty of companies do business testing and underwriting products for another companies, taking the burden of research from the customer. The most common example is a department store. You buy products based on the store reputation. Store tries to preserve and improve it's reputation, so it does not sell crappy products.
Basically, there are quite a lot free-market mechanism to ensure quality without direct governmental control and in most products it works just fine. It would not be cheaper for a manufacturer to sell a crappy product - a car, a rifle, a medicine, period.
Martlet: I swear, you are one of the dumbest people I have the pleasure of not knowing.
That may well be true - but if you are basing that opinion on this thread, you are the dumb and ignorant one. What, you tought that it was my idea? I wish. Not only Founding Fathers did not think state licensing of products necessary, such brilliant economists and nobel prise winners as Hayek and Friedman convincingly prove that such licensing not onlyviolates basic freedom of entering into contracts but hurts both consumers and producers economically and limits availability of drugs - or any other product.
medicboy: Most people don't have a clue what most medicines are for, or why they are taking them.
That's why we go to the doctors. Most people do not know how TV works or digestive tract or a car engine.
People have shown that if they can get them they will abuse narcotics...
So? If they want to do that intentionally, who am I to argue? And why should I be denied a choice because someone is dumb?
Would you want to take a drug because the company that makes it says it does something and has no side affects?
If it's a reputable company, sure. If they said they did thoriugh testing and did not, well - they will be liable for any damages, like any other product.
Did you know that one of the most lethal drugs out there (when taken on large quantities ie overdose) is acetamenaphin (tylonol)? It will destroy your liver and you will die a slow and very painful death.
And yet many people happily use a lot of it because it's "FDA approved" and they do not feel the need to think about it.
Babies born with drug induced malformities wouldnt exactly get the option of not buying non-certified drugs.
Babies or children would not get an option to make any decisions - parents do that untill they reach legal age. What if a parent decides to move into a tornado-prone area? Buy an unsafe car? Feed them the "wrong" food? Children are parent's responcibility. If you limit once choice of prospective parents, why not all? Incaarcerate all pregnant women at conception so they cannot hurt the fetus, then take childern away from parents at birth so they grow in approved environment, right?
Hangtime: well actually, miko wants to sell you the tiger noodle crap himself
Actually I sell software. It is not licensed or even certified by anyone - just backed by my reputation and the contract. What's teh problem if someone sells tiger noodlees? As long as it's really what it says on teh package and no false untested claims are made - why would anyone care?
As for "no holds barred", I never said I want to deprive you of FDA. Let it certify products, so you - and any who agree with you - can buy only those products.
miko
