fossildoc
11-30-2007, 11:44 PM
The subject doesn't refer to recreational drugs, but rather to prescription drugs used for medicinal purposes.
Everybody knows that the "good stuff" is protected by prescription laws. If you want to self-medicate for TB, sorry, the multi-drug regimen requires a trip to the doctor for a hefty hundred bucks or so, then a trip to the pharmacist, who gets about a fifty percent markup on everything.
Do we need this?
Yes, I know, people shouldn't be allowed to take drugs which will eventually harm them, like making them deaf from too much tetracycline, or dying from cardiac insufficiency with an overdose of a hypertensive.
(I wonder why acetominophen does not require a prescription, since overdose causes liver failure.)
I agree with every argument that supports prescription laws based on protection of the patient. We're all going into medicine to help people, not watch them self-destruct.
But every argument has at least two sides -- that's why it's called an argument. The other side of the prescription argument is civil rights, not to mention the huge savings to be realized by doing away with those pesky pharmacists who have long outlived their usefulness from the days when prescription medicines had to be titrated, or ground with a mortar and pestle, in the pharmacy.
Simply put, people should have the right to do anything that doesn't harm others, and they should not have to be "educated" by the enlightened rest of us. This right, IMHO, supercedes protection from oneself.
Yes, I know, harming oneself may inadvertently do harm to others, like when an overdosed person crashes a car into innocent bystanders. The counter to all such arguments is easy: alcohol and tobacco, the latter of which is subsidized by the U.S. government. As long as alcohol and tobacco are freely available to the public, any pro-prescription arguments based on controlling dangerous substances for the public good are as hypocritical and vacuous as requiring med students, but not teachers, to wear a school uniform for the purpose of <your lame excuse here>.
What about wanton recklessness that causes damages to others while under the influence of self-medication? Easy. We charge people will crimes committed while they are drunk or under the influence of recreational drugs. The same should apply to all drugs, with certain exceptions that are already covered by applicable laws (unanticipated heart attack from prescription drug while driving, etc.).
That leaves the question of whether average citizens are qualified to self-medicate. No, they are not, but so what? The idea of civil rights is not that we can exercise rights provided the government first tests our ability to do so responsibly, but rather that those rights can be exercised in spite of what the government may want. In the area of civil rights, the default case is always in favor of the citizen, not the government. People can do whatever they want unless prohibited by law, rather than being allowed to do only what is expressly permitted.
In Belize, where I spent my first two semesters of medical school, every prescription drug sold in the United States, with the exception of controlled narcotics, was available over the counter at the local pharmacy. Physicians do write prescriptions, but they are merely notes to the pharmacist, who returns the prescription to the patient. I got my topical corticosteroid medications that way, and refills without any prescription. I paid about a quarter of what those drugs cost in the states, and they weren't made in China, either; they are the same drugs made by the same U.S. manufacturers as what I would get in Miami. Complete with expiration date in a factory-sealed box. They work just fine.
My argument distills down to whether it is a legitimate function of government to protect its citizens from self-imposed harm based on ignorance or carelessness. I say no, it is not, but if you think it is, then you must allow the intrusion of government into every aspect of our lives, requiring a license for every potentially dangerous thing we do, from using a steak knife to slice up a T-bone to riding a bicycle.
I say we should abolish all prescription drug laws in the United States. People who self-medicate are fools, of course, just like lawyers who self-defend, but we should not exact a tribute from people to obtain the blessing of an "expert" before paying drug prices which are already inflated by the time they get to the pharmacy.
What do you think?
Everybody knows that the "good stuff" is protected by prescription laws. If you want to self-medicate for TB, sorry, the multi-drug regimen requires a trip to the doctor for a hefty hundred bucks or so, then a trip to the pharmacist, who gets about a fifty percent markup on everything.
Do we need this?
Yes, I know, people shouldn't be allowed to take drugs which will eventually harm them, like making them deaf from too much tetracycline, or dying from cardiac insufficiency with an overdose of a hypertensive.
(I wonder why acetominophen does not require a prescription, since overdose causes liver failure.)
I agree with every argument that supports prescription laws based on protection of the patient. We're all going into medicine to help people, not watch them self-destruct.
But every argument has at least two sides -- that's why it's called an argument. The other side of the prescription argument is civil rights, not to mention the huge savings to be realized by doing away with those pesky pharmacists who have long outlived their usefulness from the days when prescription medicines had to be titrated, or ground with a mortar and pestle, in the pharmacy.
Simply put, people should have the right to do anything that doesn't harm others, and they should not have to be "educated" by the enlightened rest of us. This right, IMHO, supercedes protection from oneself.
Yes, I know, harming oneself may inadvertently do harm to others, like when an overdosed person crashes a car into innocent bystanders. The counter to all such arguments is easy: alcohol and tobacco, the latter of which is subsidized by the U.S. government. As long as alcohol and tobacco are freely available to the public, any pro-prescription arguments based on controlling dangerous substances for the public good are as hypocritical and vacuous as requiring med students, but not teachers, to wear a school uniform for the purpose of <your lame excuse here>.
What about wanton recklessness that causes damages to others while under the influence of self-medication? Easy. We charge people will crimes committed while they are drunk or under the influence of recreational drugs. The same should apply to all drugs, with certain exceptions that are already covered by applicable laws (unanticipated heart attack from prescription drug while driving, etc.).
That leaves the question of whether average citizens are qualified to self-medicate. No, they are not, but so what? The idea of civil rights is not that we can exercise rights provided the government first tests our ability to do so responsibly, but rather that those rights can be exercised in spite of what the government may want. In the area of civil rights, the default case is always in favor of the citizen, not the government. People can do whatever they want unless prohibited by law, rather than being allowed to do only what is expressly permitted.
In Belize, where I spent my first two semesters of medical school, every prescription drug sold in the United States, with the exception of controlled narcotics, was available over the counter at the local pharmacy. Physicians do write prescriptions, but they are merely notes to the pharmacist, who returns the prescription to the patient. I got my topical corticosteroid medications that way, and refills without any prescription. I paid about a quarter of what those drugs cost in the states, and they weren't made in China, either; they are the same drugs made by the same U.S. manufacturers as what I would get in Miami. Complete with expiration date in a factory-sealed box. They work just fine.
My argument distills down to whether it is a legitimate function of government to protect its citizens from self-imposed harm based on ignorance or carelessness. I say no, it is not, but if you think it is, then you must allow the intrusion of government into every aspect of our lives, requiring a license for every potentially dangerous thing we do, from using a steak knife to slice up a T-bone to riding a bicycle.
I say we should abolish all prescription drug laws in the United States. People who self-medicate are fools, of course, just like lawyers who self-defend, but we should not exact a tribute from people to obtain the blessing of an "expert" before paying drug prices which are already inflated by the time they get to the pharmacy.
What do you think?