Foundation for Economic Education
Fully Informed Jury Association
Separation of School and State
Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations
Restoring Our Health Freedom
By Marc Guttman Published Jan 12, 2008 in The Norwich Bulletin.
My favorite part of a recent article written by Tucker Carlson about Ron Paul is:
But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk. Give yourself five minutes and see if you can think of a more countercultural idea than that. Most people assume that the whole reason we have a government is to make sure the milk gets pasteurized. It takes some stones to argue otherwise, especially if nobody's paying you to do it. (The raw-milk lobby basically consists of about eight goat-cheese enthusiasts in Manhattan, and possibly the Amish.) Paul is pro-choice on pasteurization entirely for reasons of principle. 'I support the right of people to drink whatever they want," he says. He mocks the idea that "only government can make sure we're safe, so we need the government to protect us. I don't think we'd all die of unsafe food if we didn't have the FDA. Someone else would do it.”
Aside from being humorous and ironic, Carlson uses this simple and obscure insight to shine a bright light on not only the mind of the Texas congressman running for U.S. President, but on those of the large and growing numbers of libertarian-minded Americans. Many of us would like the voting majority and their representatives to stop outlawing personal choices that only affect oneself.
Evidence of infringements on our rights need not be so obvious as property seizure, warrantless spying, and the suspension of habeas corpus and due process. An issue as subtle (and rarely reported on) as dietary supplements regulation, for example, is just as important to the cause of liberty. When did we decide it was OK for others to limit our freedom in choices of personal health care?
Last year, Congressman Paul, a medical doctor, introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act which would protect consumers rights to truthful health information and manufacturers rights to provide it. He argued, "the FDA is censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements and prohibits the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.”
We all want the therapies we take to be tested thoroughly to ensure their safety and efficacy. FDA approval standards likely improve the quality and safety of drugs available to us. Having the FDA certify therapies and foods for us may be acceptable to many, but the FDA disallows opting-out. Why should an adult not be allowed, as is currently the case, to use a treatment (or drink raw milk for that matter) with full knowledge that it has not been approved by a public certifying agency? Many suffering patients must wait years to try potential therapies, and we are less able to purchase larger quantities of nutritional foods.
By trying to protect ourselves through aggressive licensing laws serious therapy-lags develop and prices escalate. Also, these same laws favor larger pharmaceutical firms and food producers. The smaller manufacturers, who find the cost of the regulations more difficult to absorb, inevitably disappear thus eliminating diversity of products. It is likely that by not honoring free choice more lives have been lost than saved and the quality of lives have been diminished.
Of course, if we think someone is choosing poorly, we might try to dissuade them from taking a risk, but the decision is ultimately theirs to make and they must bear the responsibility of making it. Our current policy is both immoral and apparently detrimental. Preferable is self-ownership and personal responsibility.
Taking this logic further, we can start to uncover some of the current problems in health care access. Consumers have enjoyed the benefits of lower prices and better quality in products and services offered by the least regulated industries. As health care is amongst the most heavily regulated industries, consumers have much less choice in both medical insurance coverage and care. Thus, people are finding it more and more difficult to access affordable health care.
Health freedom is an important part of our individual rights. Let us return to ourselves our right to self-ownership. We would find ourselves healthier and quality, innovative, and diverse health care more easily accessible.
Marc Guttman is an emergency physician and vice chairman of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut. He lives in East Lyme.