Libertarianism on drugs
Libertarianism is the political philosophy of middle school boys and arrested development. This is well-illustrated by the bleat that people should just “do your own research.”
Look, I made an entire career out of research and was well-compensated for my judgement. But I certainly wouldn’t trust my judgement on which drugs are safe and effective and which aren’t. Apart from my lack of expertise, there’s the issue of the data:
“Some of the detailed data the FDA receives from a drug’s manufacturer is considered the company’s private property and is kept secret, so any outside reviewer isn’t playing with a full deck.
“Furthermore, evaluating the results of a clinical trial can be tricky:
• Were the study groups truly comparable at the start of the trial?
• Were the randomization and blinding done appropriately?
• What statistical methods were used to compare outcomes?
• If the differences were statistically significant, were they also large enough to be clinically meaningful?
• Were the patients studied comparable to people a doctor is treating or (as often occurs) healthier and younger?
• If the comparison drug was a placebo, how does the new drug stack up against all the evidence on other relevant treatment choices out there (perhaps including nondrug options) that weren’t in the trial?
“Beyond all that, the issue of selective publication of favorable results has bedeviled all of us who look to the peer-reviewed medical literature to guide our decisions about how well drugs work, a problem several researchers have documented. A worrisome analysis of this issue was published in the New England Journal of Medicineopens in a new tab or window by Erick Turner, MD, a psychiatrist who had spent several years at the FDA reviewing new drug applications. While there, he noticed that the more favorable studies that crossed his desk were more likely to end up being published in medical journals than the less favorable ones. Once he left the agency, he and his colleagues followed up on the concern that drugmakers who sponsor studies have in the past published the results they liked and spent far less effort to get non-favorable trial findings into the medical literature. Turner et al. reviewed the raw data on 74 clinical trials submitted to the FDA evaluating 12 different antidepressants and found that almost a third of them had never been published. Virtually all those that depicted favorable outcomes made it into medical journals; but of the studies with negative or questionable results, nearly all were never published, or appeared with a positive spin on the results.”
Approximately 62% of Americans age 25 and older do not have a college degree, and college enrollments are declining. Even among college grads, business and liberal arts majors certainly lack the background to assess drug studies, even if they did have all the data.
Only a middle school boy, a case of arrested development or a libertarian (but I repeat myself) would assert that Americans are competent to distinguish between effective medication, quackery and outright dangerous therapy.
”Do your own research” on drugs
I think you are wrong about Libertarianism.
A libertarian would say that experts should do the research and that an adult can take any drug they want—even if it dangerous.
@Dave,
Well, I’m certainly not a libertarian, but from what I’ve read, libertarians want the government out of drug regulation. Libertarians would say that companies should be allowed to market quack and dangerous medication and that it’s up to free people to do their own research before they buy and use medications. Libertarians would say that if the medications proved worthless or dangerous, people would stop buying them and the companies would go out of business. Libertarians believe your life is a price worth paying to be free of government control of drug marketing. Libertarians would have allowed thalidomide into the US.
From the horse’s mouth:
“In Libertarian Land, there would be no FDA or other prior restraint on the production, sale, or advertising of medicines.”
*snip*
“In Libertarian Land, private mechanisms would achieve a better balance between speed and safety. Drug companies would conduct clinical trials, but with less bureaucracy and delay. They would also allow — without government approval — experimental use of medications that have not completed their clinical trials.
“Drug companies would avoid selling bad drugs because the negative publicity reduces profits (as does killing off one’s customers).”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/rethinking-fda
It was with tongue in cheek I once called them Republicans smoking pot. With pot so prevalent these day’s (remember the “vape-flu?”) I guess that’s not as apt a metaphor as it once was
My Masters degree is/was in Information Science, Bachelor in Business emphasizing Decision and Information Science … my education and almost thirty years of work have been in the assimilation, collation and dissimilation of information: research … and I won’t use the word. The q-ers, the Quers, have made a mockery of it
Even my own daughter has gotten a tongue-lashing for using that line on me …
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html
“Libertarians”
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
@rc,
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
~John Rogers
Anarchism is the most free market of all the isms: pure capitalism
No rules, no regulations …
@Ten,
Indeed.
Libertarians aren’t anarchists. They still believe the state has a legitimate role in national defense and the protection of private property.
Not entirely… or perhaps I should say “a very limited role in…”
The Fire Department Watches as Home Burns. Did We Learn Anything About Libertarianism? – GOOD
and see point #3 in
Understanding Libertarian Views on the Military – Inside Political Science
I remember some years ago on the Volokh Conspiracy, there was a long discussion about whether the government should be able to levy a tax to fund a missile defense system that would destroy an incoming asteroid that was known to be going to hit Earth and kill everyone (i.e., a “Don’t Look Up” scenario). Both pros and cons were fiercely argued, with no general resolution.
@John,
Personally, I consider discussion of such a juvenile and intellectually bankrupt political philosophy as libertarianism to be a waste of my time. YMMV.
My post really wasn’t about libertarianism, it was about the absurdity and futility of “do your own research” in evaluating drug efficacy and safety. Discussions of libertarianism and defense policy are off-topic for this thread.