Author Question: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calls itself the oldest comprehensive consumer protection ... (Read 38 times)

formula1 · **on:** Jun 19, 2018

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calls itself the oldest comprehensive consumer
protection agency in the U.S. federal government. Although some regulatory functions can be
traced back to the mid-nineteenth century, FDA marks its modern beginnings with the 1906
Pure Food and Drugs Act, which prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded
food and drugs. Today it has an entire office devoted to unapproved drugs, whose goal is to
promote and protect public health through science driven, comprehensive, strategies and
actions that communicate potential risks about drug products and minimize exposure to unsafe,
ineffective, or poor quality unapproved or misbranded drugs. FDA is a prime example of a
government agency trying to be a parent, protecting us from ourselves in taking unsafe or
unproven drugs. Another way of stating this is that FDA is trying to prevent us from committing
the victimless crime of taking unsafe or unproven drugs.

What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

In 2012, the news story broke that at least sixteen major banks in the United States and Great
Britain had for many years falsified data to set a key economic index called LIBOR (London
InterBank Offered Rate). This is a technical index that, roughly, sets interest rates for a wide
range of financial issues, from home mortgages and credit card rates to payments on savings
and investments. A CNBC anchor named Larry Kudlow said the banks actions were a
victimless crime and he did not understand why prosecutors in both countries were pursuing
legal actions against the banks. A reporter for Rolling Stone named Matt Taibbi challenged him,
pointing out that artificially low rates might help some mortgage holders but would hurt
investments of individual savers as well as investments by cities, states, and pension funds.

What will be an ideal response?

guyanai · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 19, 2018

Answer to Question 1

1. A drug banned by the FDA since 1977 is laetrile, which is derived from the kernels of
apricots, almonds, and peaches. The FDA banned it because after extensive studies it
was found to have no effectiveness in treating cancer and, indeed, sometimes caused
cyanide poisoning. It costs thousands of dollars a week for treatments. Since it was
banned, there have been several prosecutions for transporting it across state lines in the
United States. Despite the ban, many desperate cancer patients travel to Mexico, where
it can be obtained. The actor Steve McQueen travelled to Mexico in 1980 for treatment
of his cancer. Although he initially said he was pleased with results, he died shortly after
the treatments. Should desperate cancer patients like McQueen be allowed to take
laetrile, even if it is not effective, if it gives them some sliver of hope in advanced stages
of the disease? Is use of the drug a victimless crime?
2. The disease of a young leukemia patient named Chad Green responded well to initial
chemotherapy treatments, but his parents insisted that he instead be treated with laetrile
because of the unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy. When the state of
Massachusetts took protective custody of the boy so chemotherapy could be resumed,
his parents fled with him to Mexico, where he was again treated with laetrile. He died a
few months later, apparently of cyanide poisoning. Is this situation the same as
McQueen's? Is it more justifiable for the government to act as a parent to protect
children like Chad?
3. In the 1980s during the early years in the U.S. of the AIDS epidemic, AZT was the first
promising drug therapy to be developed. Because the life expectancy of AIDS patients in
that era was so short, they demanded that they be allowed to start taking the drug before
clinical trials could be conducted on its effectiveness. In 1987, FDA approved providing
the unproven drug to AIDS patients immediately, as circumstances surrounding AIDS
were unique. Two years later, after completion of scientific clinical trials, it was
determined that AZT did indeed lengthen life expectancy of AIDS patients and it was
approved by FDA. Was the FDA justified in this unusual distribution of an unproven drug
in that era? Should this flexibility be granted more frequently? If the results of the clinical
trial had shown that AZT actually shortened life expectancy or made no difference,
would that alter your conclusions? Does the taking of AZT without FDA approval
constitute a victimless crime? How is this situation similar to and different from the
laetrile example above?

Answer to Question 2

1. Defend Kudlow's claim that the banks committed a victimless crime and should not be
charged with a crime.
2. Defend Taibbi's claim that these actions were not victimless.
3. If you are a business major familiar with LIBOR, research reliable sources beyond these
statements by Kudlow and Taibbi to argue in more detail whether or not you believe this
was a victimless crime.