XPost: talk.politics.misc, or.politics, seattle.politics 
 XPost: ca.politics 
 From: lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net 
  
 hlillywh@juno.com (Hal Lillywhite) wrote: 
  
 > Lobby Dosser  wrote in message 
 > news:... 
 > 
 > ... 
 > 
 >> > The question is not just, "How many lives are you willing to lose 
 >> > to dump the FDA?"  There is also the question or how many lives we 
 >> > are willing to lose by keeping effective treatments off the market 
 >> > while people who might benefit die for lack of those treatments? 
 >> > This is not an easy question but it must be addressed.  Technically 
 >> > this is called type one and type two risk.  Type one risk is what 
 >> > people usually think of, something we do causes harm.  For example, 
 >> > a drug is released and has bad side effects. Type risk is the risk 
 >> > that we fail to do something that would be beneficial.  For 
 >> > example, we keep an effective and safe drug off the market, one 
 >> > that would cure cancer, AIDs etc. while people die from those 
 >> > diseases.  For a long time the FDA pretty much ignored type two 
 >> > risk.  I think they are now starting to consider it, but it is 
 >> > still a difficult thing. 
 > 
 >> It should and could be a real simple thing. Sign a release. 
 > 
 > True, it should and could.  The problem is that it is not so simple. 
 > The courts, as I understand it, have ruled that people cannot sign 
 > away their right to sue.  Even if they do, that is not likely to be 
 > binding on family members who want to sue over the death of a loved 
 > one. 
 > 
 >> > 
 >> > This is also a liability problem.  Suppose you and I get together 
 >> > and come up with a treatment that cures 99.9% of the cases of 
 >> > something like breast cancer.  The only problem is that the other 
 >> > 0.1% of the patients die from the treatment.  We would save morfe 
 >> > lives than we take, but would we dare market it?  Not in today's 
 >> > legal climate, the families of those 0.1% would sue and win so much 
 >> > it would put us out of business. 
 > 
 >> Patient signs a release. Personal responsibility at its best. 
 > 
 > Yes if that were the way it worked.  Unfortunately, I don't think it 
 > is.  In the first place, the FDA probably would not approve such a 
 > treatment.  If it did, even the release would probably not stand up in 
 > court.  That is one reason we need tort reform. 
 > 
  
 Unfortunately 'tort reform' has become a code phrase for 'nobody gets 
 damages' and 'limit the return to lawyers'. If we got reform such that a 
 patient signature on a release was the final word, that would fix a lot 
 of problems. 
  
 Your comment about releases not standing up in court indicates another 
 area ripe for reform: judicial reform. As we have seen here in Oregon, 
 the will of the people, individually or collectively, is too often 
 trampled by judges. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)