The legal mandate of drug registration authorities in theory and practice

In the course of this century all industrial nations witnessed a growth in the influence of the state over the individual. Usually, state intervention in private life is justified by the state's mandate to protect the health and security of its constituents, either through general, uniform precepts such as laws or decrees, or through individual arrangements such as licences or subsidies. The principle of state protection has also long been established in the pharmaceutical sector, and entails that regulatory agencies should only approve those drugs for market use, which--according to scientific knowledge--have benefits which outweigh their potential harmful effects. Although 'the state of scientific knowledge' seems to imply that safety decisions concerning drugs are predominantly based on medical, scientific criteria, it is argued in this paper, that regulatory agencies nevertheless have wide discretionary margins, which allow for a political dimension to such decisions. For this reason it is briefly examined how drug authorities react under political pressure, i.e. when a drug has become a public problem. Additionally, the issue is considered why especially so-called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID's) have recently been the focus of controversy in the media. This attention has led to a situation in which it seems that regulatory agencies only accept drugs for market use with zero risk. The paper concludes by recommending that safety decisions of health authorities should involve two expert levels: in order to make precise risk assessments on the scientific level all relevant information about risks and benefits of drugs should be collated, whereas safety decisions should be taken by experts knowledgeable in the field of societal proportions.