Robin Hanson notes that a devastating argument against a status quo policy can be met by complete silence and disinterest — like the deafening silence that greets this argument from Dan Klein:
Counterparts to the FDA function in other countries. The FDA could adopt a standing policy that drugs permitted in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc. automatically become permitted in the US. Why doesn’t the FDA adopt such a policy? Is it because a drug that is safe and effective in Australia, Canada, or France may not be safe and effective in the United States?
Now he points to more deafening silence in response to a review of medical licensing:
By almost all accounts, the quality of services consumers get from non-physician clinicians is at least on par with what they would get from a physician performing the same services. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies compare outcomes in situations where patients are treated by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice nurse. Outcomes appear similar [15] – an important factor, considering that non-physician clinicians can provide many services at a much lower cost. …A review of more than 50 studies by the American Medical Association’s Council on Medical Education found that the peer reviewed studies “almost uniformly conclude that … a non-physician clinician … can provide an acceptable level of care.” The Council did note that some observers find serious flaws in the literature, including small samples, lack of control subjects, and failure to control for differences in the severity of illness treated by physicians and non-physician clinicians. Nevertheless, physician groups are unable to point to studies showing worse health outcomes with mid-level clinicians.