3/02/2005

What medicines are REALLY safe??

For decades medicines have been approved by the FDA and later recalled because of serious side effects, even death. So how do we know which ones are safe and which ones are hazardous to our health? There is no real way to know for sure, but the smart thing to do would be not to start taking a new "miracle drug" right as it hits the market. Wait it out a year or two until all of the drugs side effects have been discovered, and then decide for yourself if it's worth the risk. The medicine making industry is huge. After all, the money is in the medicine not the cure right?

One of the more recent discoveries is that the FDA has now issued a warning for naproxen, based on the evidence of some cardiac risk. Naproxen is a heavy duty NSAID more commonly known as the headache medicine Alieve. It is also sold under some other cheap generic brands.

This is just one example of a commonly used drug that we assume is safe and has no risks, but really can pose a threat to our health. What should we do about this problem? One possible solution to help lower the risk is to recall our commonly used medicines a few at a time and re-run them through the several layers of the FDA approval process. Even then, if they missed the risks the first time, can we really depend on them to catch them the second time through?

1 comment:

Dr. Tufte said...

-1 on Jones post and Vincent's comment for a spelling and grammatical errors.

Is anything really safe? The way to balance safety is by letting marginal costs balance marginal benefits. Individuals have trouble measuring both of those, but there isn't much evidence that the FDA can do a better job.

Fuller public information about what people with certain characteristics take, and what the results are, would help - but we are actually moving in the opposite direction from this.

This is another example of the problems brought up by public choice economics: in democracies, minorities with relatively large benefits or costs will be able to get what they want at the expense of majorities with relatively smaller benefits or costs.