Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
david78209:
[Read the article: Our benevolent surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As a doctor who worries about civil liberties, I'm happy somebody keeps track of the Schedule II prescriptions, ambivalent about any tracking program for Schedules III, IV, and V, and opposed to Big Brother poking his nose into the non scheduled stuff.
Let me ask you this question - let's say I come into your office (I'm a mentally competent adult -- at least in our hypothetical) and tell you that I want to take a Schedule II drug (or Schedule III) for Problem X. You tell me that I shouldn't, that there is a high risk of addiction, that the problem doesn't warrant that treatment. I tell you that, after listening to everything you have said, I disagree with you and I want to take it anyway.
Why should your judgment prevail over mine for what I take? Why, as a competent adult, should I need your permission before I can take the substance I decide is best for me?
I ask that, in part, with reference to the attorney-client relationship. Often times in that relationship, there is as much at stake as there is in a doctor-patient relationship -- the individual's life savings, or financial security, or liberty, or even (in the rarest of cases), their life.
Yet the decision about what to do ALWAYS remains the client's. The lawyer can advise them, warn them, urge them in the strongest possible terms not to opt for Choice X because Choice X is stupid, self-destructive, risky, irrational, etc. But it is always an advisory role, never a parental role where the lawyer can override the client's choice for his own interests.
Why should the doctor have the ability to override the decisions of the patient? That really makes no sense to me, and for that reason, I am vehemently opposed to these prescription laws.
Beyond all of that, there is even less reason for the Federal government to be monitoring what substances I take. In addition to all the other reasons I listed in the post and commenters have added, I am also convinced - reading around everywhere today on this topic - that there are substantial numbers of people foregoing pharmaceutical treatments that they think they should have because they fear having that information registered in data bases with the government.
-
erithtotl:
[Read the article: What is the rationale behind the prescription drug laws?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can see why you don't post on this topic very often
Good grief. Glenn, I'm a big fan of your political writings but this is the one they are going to dig up if you ever ran for public office.
As I said, that's not why I don't post much on this topic. It's because I try to preserve what I post about for things that can actually be changed. At least for now, this isn't one of them.
Having said that, it's not as stigmatized a view as you might think. The intense popularity of online pharmaceutical sites is explained precisely by the fact that people think they should be able to get ambien, xanyx, valium or whatever else they want without having to go beg a doctor for permission.
Just out of sheer practicality, the world is full of hypocondriacs who would take the most severe and addictive medication at the first sign of headache, regardless of doctor advice, thinking they've got Ebola.
This is just a way of saying that people will make bad choices for themselves with their freedom. Again, why do we allow them to make bad choices for themselves when their legal interests are on the line, when the consequences can be just as grave? Why not force them to submit their predicament to a panel of experts who no better?
I've seen substantial numbers of people in the criminal and civil judicial system harm themselves greatly by disregarding the advice they received from experts and making really stupid choices. Why should that be allowed?
In addition, the web of complex drug interactions as well as side effects on a persons physiology and psychology are far beyond what the average person is going to handle. What if as an 'informed adult' you take a coctail of drugs that turns you into a psychotic killer? Or puts you asleep at the wheel? And what if in the aforementioned cases you are a cop or a bus driver? Or just causes you to be so violently ill that you have to report to the emergency room, drawing attention away from more deserving patients.
What if people smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer? Or drink lots of alcohol and drive? Or go sky diving and ride horses and have an accident and injure themselves?
-
Monkey In Chief:
[Read the article: What is the rationale behind the prescription drug laws?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The rationale for prescription drug laws is many drugs are dangergous and not from addiction risk. Serious adverse reactions are possible with many medications and general public is not educated in medicine enough to weigh the benefits vs risks. Glenn, are you really qualified to decide for yourself if and then which high-blood pressure or cholestrol lowering medication is appropriate for you?
It's exactly the same situation as with lawyers. Most people aren't qualified to navigate legal issues without the advice of a lawyer, so they can seek out that advice if they want -- and they can then follow it or disregard it.
Obviously, people should be able to consult physicians to obtain their input as to what drugs they should and shouldn't take. I certainly would do so and would recommend that people do that. But the decision as to whether they follow that advice (as WT said he wants to do) should be their choice -- just like it is in other equally consequential contexts.