I have the answer to this question: I just need it explained in a different way than my book is explaining it.
Here it is:
Some people claim that the reason herbs are not prescribed as drugs by licensed physicians is that the medical effectiveness of herbs is seriously in doubt. No drug can be offered for sale, however, unless it has regulatory-agency approval for medicinal use in specific illnesses or conditions. It costs about $200 million to get regulatory-agency approval for a drug, and only the holder of a patent can expect to recover such large expenses. Although methods of extracting particular substances from herbs can be patented, herbs themselves and their medicinal uses can't be. Therefore, under the current system licensed physicians can't recommend the medicinal use of herbs.
The argument depends on the assumption that:
C) The only time a substance is properly used as a drug is when it is prescribed as a drug by a licensed physician.
I don't understand how it came to this conclusion above the others that were listed. Is it because no drug can be offered for sale by a licensed physician without having regulatory approval? I need this answer explained please!
Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: happygogo and 11 guests