This article would be an example of checks and balances where the Justice Department is keeping the Food and Drug Administration in control and making sure they don't get too powerful. The Justice Department introduced a case to investigate a trial over the benefits of a certain drug. The Justice Department filed a case because of a complaint from a professor that complained AstraZeneca was favoring one drug over another (Plavix vs. Brilinta). During the study Plato, the Americans taking Brilinta had a less successful trial than Plavix, but the FDA still decided to approve because of a trial error. The Justice Department closed the case. Checks and balances helps not only the branches of the government from gaining too much power, but also governmental agencies like the FDA.
The FDA is an agency that is in charge of making sure the new drugs introduced into America are safe for doctors to prescribe to people with medical problems to treat there symptoms. The purpose for the Justice Department opening a case was to make sure the FDA wasn't becoming too corrupt and favoring one drug over another. Checks and balances keeps the government able to rule without corruption. The government in today's society is a representative democracy which means no one person makes the decisions. In this case the exact same thing is taking place where the government agency has representation at the court case, also the Justice Department has many different people that make decisions and not one person can make a decision to close, open or decide whether the person is guilty or not guilty.
The FDA is an agency that is in charge of making sure the new drugs introduced into America are safe for doctors to prescribe to people with medical problems to treat there symptoms. The purpose for the Justice Department opening a case was to make sure the FDA wasn't becoming too corrupt and favoring one drug over another. Checks and balances keeps the government able to rule without corruption. The government in today's society is a representative democracy which means no one person makes the decisions. In this case the exact same thing is taking place where the government agency has representation at the court case, also the Justice Department has many different people that make decisions and not one person can make a decision to close, open or decide whether the person is guilty or not guilty.