The Washington Post reports:

“The federal system for approving and regulating drugs is in serious disrepair…”As a science-based agency, the FDA is remarkable for its lack of introspection, second-guessing, and failure to assess its own performance and capabilities in a systematic way.”

Much of the…report focused on a central gap in drug regulation: While the FDA demands strict data on efficacy and safety from clinical trials before approving a new drug, less attention is paid after the drug reaches the market.”

As usual, the solution to bureaucratic inefficiency is always suggested to be more bureaucracy. A panel of experts suggests several means by which the FDA might remedy the current snafu:

Moratorium on advertising new drugs.
Reevaluate safet & effectiveness after 5 years.
Register all clinical trials, not just published/favorable studies

So, why don’t we let the patients and doctors decide? Because the FDA consists of various “experts.” These “experts” are the sole arbiters of expertise. If you are not one of them, or if your position differs substantially from theirs, you have merely revealed that you are unqualified to make the decisions they are charged with making.

In a market where consumer sovereigny is valued over red-tape and bureacracy, the producers of any ineffective and/or harmful drugs would find themselves in quick financial distress. Not to mention the significant loss of goodwill and brand loyalty that would inevitably follow, it is expensive to develop drugs, and the costs thereby incurred could not be recouped. The drug companies have every incentive to produce quality medications, and doctors have incentives (morally and economically) to preserve the life and livelihood of their patients.