![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
February 2002Editor's NotesEvery so often, our Director of Environment and Regulatory Studies, Laura Jones, warns Canadians to renounce their love affair with the Precautionary Principle. The maxim that best illustrates the Precautionary Principle is: "it is better to be safe than sorry." The environmental movement uses the Precautionary Principle to thwart any kind of development almost anywhere "just in case" any endangered or threatened species or ecosystem might be imperiled by such activity. The problem with being safe at all costs is that, as with extremes in all things, there is a price to pay. And we all have to pay it. The reason the worry-warts can get away with making us all pay the price is that we can't see what that price is. When the Precautionary Principle stops a hotel from being built, or a mine from being developed, there is no immediately obvious cost. Thousands of people who had jobs don't suddenly lose them. In fact, nothing much seems to happen. The problem is, of course, precisely thatnothing much happens. The cumulative effect of nothing much happening all over the country is that our economy stagnates. As this issue of Fraser Forum reveals, another component of our lives is also subject to the stultifying effect of the Precautionary Principle: the prescription drug business. We all benefit from prescription drugs, so we all have an interest in their availability. Because there are so many drugs available for so many illnesses, many of us assume that there is nothing wrong with the way prescription drugs are developed and marketed in Canada. However, as authors in this issue point out, the converse is true; a number of improvements would help many people live better, healthier lives by giving them access to a wider variety of drugs, sooner. That's where the Precautionary Principle comes in again. Our "better safe than sorry" approach to life means that many drugs that could be helping us are held up in a complicated regulatory approval process. Such drugs include not just the new and experimental, but drugs that other countries have already deemed safe enough for their citizens. With every holdup, with each day that passes, someone in this country suffers more than they have to, or succumbs to an illness that a new drug might have overcome. But perhaps that price is not too steep for Canadians. After all, it seems we must be safeat all costs. Kristin McCahon
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems. |