Talk:Regulation of therapeutic goods
|WikiProject Drug Policy (Inactive)|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Sonam jindal. Assigned peer reviews: Nataliereid, Hugo Tse.|
The article starts by defining therapeutic goods as drugs and therapeutic devices. The rest of the article is all about drugs, and nothing about devices. I could correct that for the UK but invite others with more time to do something more systematic.
- I definitely agree with you on this... — Skittleys (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- To further my own comment... yes, I think Regulation of therapeutic goods and Drug prohibition law should be merged, preferably with the latter being incorporated into the former.
- Looking at the merging rules, these pages should be merged because they are essentially covering the same topic, they are the same subject and have the same scope, and there is significant overlap already in the two articles. I don't see any reason they should be stand-alone articles. The only problems I see are: (1) they've both got quite a bit of content, so it will require quite a bit of work, and a dedicated editor (and I'm not nominating myself for that!); and (2) what the article title should be — I vote for "Regulation of therapeutic goods" because it (a) sounds more neutral, and (b) encompasses devices as well as drugs.
- Since I think they should be merged, and do not want to do it myself, I'm proposing the merger. The discussion will remain here.
- — Skittleys (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi - I think these articles shouldn't be merged. Regulation of therapeutic goods refers mostly to medicine and their control, where as Drug prohibition law refers to the prohibition of narcotics. Whilst in some countries regulation may occur under the same Acts, they're still quite distinct. I'm going to remove this from Proposed Mergers. Jnthn0898 (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
hi, sry if this is inappropriate, but it just seems rather misleading to me to frame the fda as presented, given that there are numerous claims that the fda is not functioning as a regulating body, and that many fda employees have stated that it is not their job to regulate, and that they are operating as if the industry were self-regulating. for one famed example of this: "The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day."—Dr Ley former Commissioner of the FDA. just thought some note of this should be made, even if merely a link to controversy or claims of "revolving doors". thnx. -(prefer to remain anonymous) 6 Dec 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
DIY therapeutic devices
Hi, I distantly recall an article about homemade TENS machines being removed from a popular electronics magazine because of issues with legality, as the risk to the public was deemed to be excessively high in case of malfunction or errors in construction.
Similar articles regarding homemade ECG, EEG, SpO2 meters etc may not be published however I have seen these mentioned in the context of "research" projects sold as an educational tool not as any sort of diagnostic device. There are headsets that read brainwaves and the reason for the high cost has to do with MHRA and relevant law.
I actually looked into building a device that used single chip APDs as a migraine CSD detection system but the legal issues there were nearly impossible to deal with. Even purchasing the chips caused problems as the manufacturers flatly refused to supply them unless I could prove that the intended use was not medical and many manufacturers have a standard "this product is not to be used for" warning in their legal documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)