This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Drug Policy (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Drug Policy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Drug PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Drug PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Drug PolicyDrug Policy Pharmacology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Regulation of therapeutic goods in the United States page were merged into Regulation of therapeutic goods on 20 May 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sonam jindal. Peer reviewers: Nataliereid, Hugo Tse.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey, I am proposing of including regulation of natural medicines in this article, Indonesia's Ministry of Health and National Agency of Food and Drug Control actually regulate health devices, drugs, and natural/traditional medicines. Rules about natural medicines based on local native traditional practices have been passed quite some time and the ones based on culture that belongs outside of Indonesia are being planned. Handarii (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 85.211.204.188 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 185.3.100.40 (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]