医学经济学:结束FDA(食品和药物管理局)

John Romanach, W. Block
{"title":"医学经济学:结束FDA(食品和药物管理局)","authors":"John Romanach, W. Block","doi":"10.21512/TW.V18I1.4052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this research is to know what FDA was done to get pure food and drug. Was it to put all the eggs in one basket and entrust the objective to a monopolistic agency which suffers no financial losses when it errors or would the authors be better off relying on a private, competitive certification industry, the firms of which can earn profits for accurate assessments and losses for erroneous ones? Ensuring the quality of pharmaceuticals was concerned, the best and most efficient means toward that end was reliance on free enterprise. The method used was the literature review by applying what the authors knew about the difference between competition and monopoly to an arena where all too seldom was it applied. It finds that the FDA cannot eliminate risk; only deny people from taking the calculated risk in the hope of curing disease. Legislation such as the Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act has been introduced with the intention of empowering patients to make informed decisions and allow them to take drugs not approved by the FDA.","PeriodicalId":34364,"journal":{"name":"Journal the Winners","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical Economics: End the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)\",\"authors\":\"John Romanach, W. Block\",\"doi\":\"10.21512/TW.V18I1.4052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this research is to know what FDA was done to get pure food and drug. Was it to put all the eggs in one basket and entrust the objective to a monopolistic agency which suffers no financial losses when it errors or would the authors be better off relying on a private, competitive certification industry, the firms of which can earn profits for accurate assessments and losses for erroneous ones? Ensuring the quality of pharmaceuticals was concerned, the best and most efficient means toward that end was reliance on free enterprise. The method used was the literature review by applying what the authors knew about the difference between competition and monopoly to an arena where all too seldom was it applied. It finds that the FDA cannot eliminate risk; only deny people from taking the calculated risk in the hope of curing disease. Legislation such as the Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act has been introduced with the intention of empowering patients to make informed decisions and allow them to take drugs not approved by the FDA.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal the Winners\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal the Winners\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21512/TW.V18I1.4052\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal the Winners","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21512/TW.V18I1.4052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究的目的是了解FDA做了什么来获得纯净的食品和药物。是把所有的鸡蛋放在一个篮子里,把目标委托给一个垄断机构,即使出错也不会遭受经济损失,还是让作者依靠一个私人的、竞争激烈的认证行业,让公司能从准确的评估中获利,从错误的评估中亏损,这样会更好?就确保药品质量而言,实现这一目标的最佳和最有效手段是依靠自由企业。使用的方法是通过将作者所知道的竞争和垄断之间的区别应用到一个很少应用的领域来进行文献综述。它发现FDA不能消除风险;只会阻止人们为了治愈疾病而承担预期的风险。立法,如《富有同情心的自由选择法》,旨在赋予患者做出明智决定的权力,并允许他们服用未经FDA批准的药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Medical Economics: End the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
The aim of this research is to know what FDA was done to get pure food and drug. Was it to put all the eggs in one basket and entrust the objective to a monopolistic agency which suffers no financial losses when it errors or would the authors be better off relying on a private, competitive certification industry, the firms of which can earn profits for accurate assessments and losses for erroneous ones? Ensuring the quality of pharmaceuticals was concerned, the best and most efficient means toward that end was reliance on free enterprise. The method used was the literature review by applying what the authors knew about the difference between competition and monopoly to an arena where all too seldom was it applied. It finds that the FDA cannot eliminate risk; only deny people from taking the calculated risk in the hope of curing disease. Legislation such as the Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act has been introduced with the intention of empowering patients to make informed decisions and allow them to take drugs not approved by the FDA.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Abnormal Return Analysis Before and After General Election in Asia The Importance of Brand Stories towards Brand Perception and Purchase Intention in Gen Z Indonesians Hot-Fit Model to Measure the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Information System in Public Sector Analysis of Regional Budget Management Performance at Regional Finance Agency of Pamekasan Regency Social Capital in Family Firms: Impacts on Family-Longevity-Goals and Performances
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1