theWorldWithin said:
This is absolute non-sense. If you are not allowed to make a bad decision then it is no longer true freedom. Ultimately you should always be free to harm yourself in any form you deem acceptable. The role of government should be to ensure consumers are fully informed about the potential harm that may come about by their decision to use a particular treatment product and to ensure it meets QA standards.
Well, this point is indeed complicated. I think it's in fact the responsibility of a government to care for its citizens and this includes that they do not harm themselves, if this can be avoided somehow. The idea that everybody is fully informed and can make up his own decisions is pointless. Maybe YOU are sufficiently informed (btw, I feel that I'm not) but unfortunately the majority of people in Europe and North America (just to stick with these 2 regions) are NOT educted enough to understand anything as complex as pathogenesis of any kind, or neurological issues or even why nose drops are unhealthy in the long term. Tne irony is that I would really like to agree with (and in some special areas I DO agree with you) but this is hardly a viable solution for whole populations.
This brings back the "elite"-attitude, where the well informed and educated could be given more rights to choose than the rest. But such an approach would never be accepted by the majority.
As I said before, even with well educated folks these decisions would be extremely subjective. That is because not even an "Einstein" is free of psychological triggers and emotions and the more or less free access to, lets say amphetamine, would lead to incredible abuse. It's a fact! Lots of substances just have a very high abuse liability. Therefore (but it's of course not the only reason), people should not given the right to choose themselves.
theWorldWithin said:
Murphy you line of logic above is the crux of the drug prohibitionist stance, that these drugs must be controlled because they can 'harm' the user who is too infantile and stupid to make informed decisions on his own.
I'm afraid that the vast majority of drug users would indeed do harm themselves. Informed decisions can be made solely by informed folks and their number is quite small. It's a shame, I admit, but it's unfortunately the truth.
The difference between health systems in the US vs. Germany vss <insert your country of origin> makes such a discussion even more difficult and I will try not to look at those differences in the upcoming posts.
Just to make it clear: Did I get it right that the discussion is about the patients free choice vs. the choice of the physician?? Was this the original question of auto238367? If so, then we can still compare the situations in our countries... Btw, here (Germany) many docs are influenced by the pharma industry as well. To deny this would be foolish. But depending on the seriousness of your sickness, more than one option will ge given by the doc (if possible). When you have an infection, you will get an antibiotic without further discussion. But I expect from every informed doc (not all of them are) to discuss the choice of e.g. an ADHD-treatment with more care. To simply prescribe one med, without further explication, is medical malpractice!
No, you should not be allowed to freely choose your meds. Not YOU personally TheWorldWithin, but "you", the average layperson.
-
Murphy
. I think here lies the main problem of our discussion. In central europe you trust your doctor, you get your treatment paid by your cheap health insurance and it´s forbidden, even for the very poor to don´t have that insurance. A DOCTOR.med. has an excellent reputation in society. Of course it´s not near to perfect, as humans always find sth. to complain about 8)