The Freedom Bulletin

An article in Nature (original source with paywall here) claims that sugar should be regulated like alcohol and tobacco through taxes and age restrictions because it is equally “toxic” to people. According to CBS News:

“The United Nations announced in September that chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes contribute to 35 million deaths worldwide each year, according to the commentary. The U.N. pegged tobacco, alcohol, and diet as big risk factors that contributed to this death rate.

Two of those are regulated by governments, ‘leaving one of the primary culprits behind this worldwide health crisis unchecked,’ the authors, Robert H. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis, argued.”

If sugar was something inflicted on people against their will, like pollutants in the air, then it would make sense to regulate it. But sugar is something that people can choose to eat, or not to eat. Consuming lots of sugar, just like consuming lots of alcohol or tobacco, may very well increase the risk of dying of heart disease, cancer, or diabetes. But “experts” have no right to assume that it would be beneficial for these risks to be lowered no matter the cost. Each person is the ultimate expert in his or her own well-being, and each person will arrive at a different conclusion when it comes to balancing health and quantity of life with enjoyment and quality of life. It’s not a bad thing for decisions about what to consume to be “unchecked,” as the authors of the article characterize it; it’s a basic part of a free society.

Sugar, alcohol, and tobacco do have some similarities. Sure, they all can have negative health effects. But choosing to consume them does not interfere with anyone else’s life; therefore people have a fundamental right to consume as much or as little as they choose. Instead of considering the similarities a reason to regulate sugar, why not consider de-regulating tobacco and alcohol?

The Boston Globe‘s Jeff Jacoby had a great column today about the recent federal court decision halting, temporarily at least, the FDA’s requirement that all cigarette packages display graphic, paternalistic warnings urging people to stop smoking:

The FDA’s gruesome new labels are not designed to provide consumers with useful information about the hazards of smoking. After 45 years of mandatory Surgeon General’s warnings, every non-comatose American knows perfectly well that cigarettes are a noxious health risk. That’s why the share of Americans who smoke at least occasionally has fallen to an all-time low of 19.3 percent, or less than 1 in 5 — a far cry from the more than 42 percent who were smokers in 1965. No one, not even Big Tobacco, disputes Washington’s right to require cigarette makers to disclose pertinent facts about their product’s dangers. Those disclosures, it’s clear, have been effective.

So why the shrill new labels? Not to inform Americans, but to indoctrinate them. To “grab people by the lapels,” as NPR put it last summer, “and be the visual equivalent of someone yelling: ‘Stop smoking!’”

I couldn’t have said it better than he did. Read it at BostonGlobe.com.

As almost the whole world knows, Dr. Conrad Murray was convicted on Monday of involuntary manslaughter for giving Michael Jackson a dose of propofol that ultimately caused his death. After thinking about this for a couple of days, I don’t think this was the right verdict.

In court, the case came down to how exactly Jackson received the fatal dose. Prosecutors claimed that Murray administered the propofol to Jackson, while the defense claimed Jackson injected it himself. But neither side denied that Jackson wanted and asked for the anesthetic. According to Murray, “He was pleading and begging to please please let him have some milk because that was the only thing that would work.”

So basically, Murray did what Jackson asked for. Jackson weighed the risks and the benefits of taking propofol in a home setting to help him sleep, and decided that the benefits outweighed the risks. Yes, this is a dangerous thing to do, and many people would consider it stupid, but people have the right to do dangerous things if they want to, and doctors have the right to help them carry out their decisions. Manslaughter convictions should be reserved for those who cause people’s deaths against their will. Although Jackson’s family members, friends, and fans are understandably upset at his death, and want to see someone punished, the truth is that Jackson died as a result of his own choices (choices he had a right to make). Convicting Murray of manslaughter is not justice.

Murray is appealing his conviction. It’ll be interesting to see how the appeal goes.

There’s a debate going on in Massachusetts about whether written permission should be required for HIV testing or just verbal consent to medical treatment in general. Currently MA is one of only two states that require written consent, and groups who want to encourage more testing are trying to change this. Personally I don’t really care whether consent is verbal or written, but I think there need to be stronger, not weaker, consent requirements for all medical procedures.

We live in a system where, when someone goes into a doctor’s office, the doctor usually just tells them what medical tests they are going to have, maybe asking, as an afterthought, if that’s OK. This is wrong. As I explained in a blog post from yesterday, this is not true consent. Many people, especially if they are shy by temperament, find it difficult or impossible to refuse what a doctor tells them to do. We need a system where the patient, not the doctor, is in charge of medical decisions. Instead of saying what medical procedures are needed, doctors should tell people what services they offer (perhaps through a brochure, sheet of paper, or sign) and the person can indicate which services they would like, with advice from the doctor only if asked.

Another part of the proposed law would require doctors’ offices to have written permission before sharing a customer’s HIV status. This seems pretty reasonable. People should be in control of their own medical records, and it should be a no-brainer that doctors should not share information without the permission of the person the information is about. But of course, doctors had paternalistic and pompous things to say in opposition to the law:

Dr. Howard Heller…said the legislation would mean that each time he referred an HIV patient to a different specialist outside of his organization, he could not tell that provider about any HIV-related medications that patient was taking, without first getting the patient’s written permission.

And that’s a problem why?

“Each time we share information we would have to have written informed consent…and each step we put in the way puts more impediments to getting tested,” said Dr. Stephen Boswell.

That’s right, how dare the wishes of the people he is supposed to be serving get in the way of making them to do what he wants? I know doctors are trying to make people healthier, but too many of them have lost sight of the idea of liberty and the dignity of individuals. Doctors need to give up their paternalistic attitudes and start treating their customers with respect, just as members of any other profession would. They need to focus less on what they think is best for their patients and more on their patients’ wishes.

Remember when the FDA decided to require all cigarette packages to display graphic warning labels? Five tobacco companies  - R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Commonwealth Brands, Ligget Group, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co – are suing in federal court to stop this. Although tobacco companies are far from sympathy-evoking, and although they are almost certainly motivated at least in part by financial gain in this lawsuit, the fact is that they are right. These warning labels are paternalistic and are an affront to individual liberty.

The lawsuit reads,

“Never before in the United States have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products.”

It continues,

“This is precisely the type of compelled speech the 1st Amendment prohibits.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Manufacturers should not be allowed to put lies or deceptive statements on packages. It even makes sense to require companies to provide factual information about their products, such as ingredients, risks, and benefits, on packages. But these labels – graphic pictures of diseased lungs, caskets, and dead bodies – go far beyond providing information. They are propaganda designed to disgust people and make them avoid smoking. They are also paternalistic because by requiring them, the FDA has decided against giving people the facts and allowing them to make their own decisions, and decided instead that people should be emotionally manipulated into doing what the FDA thinks is best for them.

It would be bad enough if the FDA displayed this insulting propaganda on government property or purchased advertisements with its own resources. But the new policy requires private companies – in fact the very companies that the warnings are targeted against – to use their resources to display the FDA’s propaganda. Requiring cigarette companies to speak the government’s message – an insulting, paternalistic, and anti-liberty message at that – is a violation of free speech rights.