Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FDA Regulating Your Stem Cells As Interstate Commerce

Posted by timothy on from the oh-that's-raich dept.

New submitter dcbrianw writes "A non-surgical procedure that treats joint pain involves removing stem cells from a patient's blood and reinserting them into the joint. The facility conducting these procedures resides in Colorado, but because it orders equipment to perform the procedure from outside of Colorado, the FDA claims it must regulate this process and that it can classify stem cells as a drug. This issue opens the debate of what the FDA, or other regulatory bodies, may regulate within each of our own bodies." Quick: Name five activities with no possible plausible effect on interstate commerce.

13 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Commerce maximalists? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can anyone comment on why the Supreme Court has historically allowed the Commerce clause to apply to absolutely anything that could be remotely, however ridiculously, be considered related to interstate commerce, and thus trample states' rights?

    Is this simply a perennial sin of the Court, or is there a sound Constitutional basis for it?

    1. Re:Commerce maximalists? by robbadler · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you misread the article. Biohazardous material will not be crossing state lines, medical equipment will. This is an attempt to stop the use of that equipment on the grounds that it at one point crossed a state line. So did my jeans. Can they use Interstate Commerce to keep me from going to work?

    2. Re:Commerce maximalists? by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No it isn't.

      The 'potentially biohazardous material' is contained inside the patient when he boards the airplane to fly to Colorado. That he happens to be going to Colorado to have this procedure performed sets him aparts from the other airplane passengers not at all.

      What the FDA is claiming and will probably be backed up by the executive on but possibly not the judicial, is that because the company performing the procedure purchases equipment from other states, their entire business can then be regulated per the commerce clause. This includes their performing the procedure.

      It is the same line of thought that had the Clinton administration claiming it could confiscate a person's property simply because that property had once moved across state lines, no matter how long ago and no matter how many hands it had previously passed through, even within the same state. This is an enormous power to give to a government and the very idea that such a tenuous tie is enough to warrant it is insane. SCOTUS rebuked that just a bit recently, but not nearly enough.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    3. Re:Commerce maximalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This came up in a constitutional law class I took. The answer we came up with is that (1) we (the general populace) want the federal government to be able to regulate these things, (2) constitutional amendments are nigh impossible, and (3) it can be justified... the logic is tortured, and I doubt any intellectually honest person would really believe it, but it can be done.

      You probably hate point (1), but think about when it really started happening... the depression was here, people were miserable, they wanted someone to save them, so they turned to the government. And that still happens today. Turn on the news, and when you hear about a major problem, there will be a commentator following hard upon saying "where were the regulators in all of this?!" and people will nod their heads.

      Anyway, that's the answer: the majority of people want it to be the way it is.

    4. Re:Commerce maximalists? by Goobermunch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please, please, please. Learn your history.

      FDR did not pack the court with statists. In fact, the proposal he had advanced (of adding more justices to the supreme court), never went through. Instead, one justice on the court changed his mind about how to approach these matters and turned what had once been a 4-5 court into a 5-4 court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

      But go ahead and blame FDR, that's easier than learning about history.

      --AC

    5. Re:Commerce maximalists? by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can they use Interstate Commerce to keep me from going to work?

      They can use the Interstate Commerce clause to prevent you from growing wheat in your own backyard for your own consumption, so . . . yes? And it's obvious why the courts let them get away with this; like any good statist, the courts also want the government to control your life at every level. Judges really have the easiest job in the world of it, though, since all they have to do is say "Whatever the government wants is cool with us".

    6. Re:Commerce maximalists? by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mostly because the state governments are closer to the people they represent, and are probably (slightly) more concerned about the welfare of the individual people they represent. Obviously, some state governments are pretty huge too, so that is going to be admittedly relative. Still, the Federal Government is gigantic, and you will often find that it tends to represent only the key groups for getting elections won, which is ultimately a very small number of people when you consider it.

      I think the best form of democracy consists of the most local form that can get the job done. Having a national army on the Federal level is going to be necessary to protect the whole country from larger aggressors, and certainly it is a bad idea to have localized foreign policy, but do we really need the Federal government to synchronize education, for instance? I'd say not, and the arguments that I hear from some people along the lines of "we can't let the hicks stop teaching evolution," or the like, I think is an invalidation of the principle of government by the People. I also feel that such polarization starts happening when individuals feel they need to become more and more radicalized to even be heard in the larger governmental venues.

      Having government at a local level does not always prevent corruption, but it does allow people to actually have a chance to have a say in government if they try to exert their will and interest. To even be noticed on a state and Federal level, you start needing the massive cash reserves that only things like special interest groups or corporate sponsorships can get for you. There's less diversity in solutions, and they tend to be executed more on a basis of political expediency rather than need or efficiency.

    7. Re:Commerce maximalists? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

  2. DMT by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is a naturally occuring endogenous neurotransmitter that is also a Schedule I drug.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  3. Growing your own food affects interstate commerce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you grow your own food, you won't buy it from another state. Therefore, growing your own food affects interstate commerce. At least that's what the Supreme Court decided when a farmer fed his own animals with his home grown food.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

  4. Re:So? by ClioCJS · · Score: 5, Informative
    Uh, no. That's not how medicine OR the FDA works. They don't regulate medical procedures throughout the country. They have a specific scope. But i guess you weren't too sure of yourself if you had to post anonymously, were you?

    A modicum of facts

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  5. No such thing exists by NovaSupreme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You cannot do anything without having some effect on interstate commerce.
    Entropy of whole universe must increase with time, so everything is connected including interstate commerce and your poop.
    Alternatively, if you are alive and you breathe, you must be changing composition of air a little bit, and since all air is connected, you are modifying the air composition of the whole country. This promotes traders who sell purified air across states.
    Alternatively, if you buy an out-of-state merchandise, of course you impact interstate commerce. On the other hand, if you dont buy from an out-of-state merchant, of course you impact interstate commerce, as your (lack of) activity will have negative effect on the price of the merchandise.

    Oh, this would be so funny if this clause were not the most abused clause in the constitution, that has been taken WAAAAAY out of its context.

  6. ... Glenn Beck on Slashdot? by truavatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Glenn Beck's "theblaze.com" is your sole source for this front page post? Thanks slashdot.