October 28, 2008
"The Evidence Gap"
In a series of articles, the New York Times explores "the evidence gap." These articles examine "medical treatments used despite scant proof they work and will consider steps toward medicine based on evidence." In the latest piece, Reed Abelson looks at the FDA's process for reviewing medical technology, particularly the "fast track review" process.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "The Evidence Gap":
Tracked on Sep 14, 2009 10:17:43 AM
I have been following the series as well, and have posted about it on my law blog (found at the above web site;click on BLOG). These treatments, devices and drugs are not of the quality that medical consumers believe them to be, as Ms. Abelson's article point out. And, despite the public's perception, the FDA trial process is not what people beleive it to be. It is rushed and often half-baked. And the Reigel v. Medtronic decision sharply curtails the rights of patients harmed through such treatments and devices to use state courts for redress. Wyeth v. Levine may be decided the same way. This is bad for medicine, and bad for law, but it is especially bad for the medical consumer.
Posted by: Andrew Barovick | Oct 28, 2008 7:04:12 AM