[from John] Joel’s previous topic on medical ethics raises the broader question of medical ethics in its many forms. I would like to explore one or two points at this time.
Is it ethical for the nation or the state, to control the following medical practices if the individual wishes to participate? I’m discussing ethics not the law. I believe that these are personal choices and that the state has no ethical authority to interfere.
a. Use of drugs that are legal in other nations but not here. Drugs that are legally available in other countries may help an individual when drugs currently available in the US are not as effective.
b. Use of experimental drugs. Experimental drugs undergoing human blind test may help an individual, should it not be his choice?
c. Medical use of marijuana. The same argument as above.
d. Personal use of drugs now illegal.
In the last case ( d ) and as a second point the state will claim that it has an obligation to protect its citizens against the abuse of certain habit forming drugs is this a valid ethical position or a sophism? I don’t have the figures nor do I have the energy to pursue them however, intuition leads me to the conclusion that there is little valid evidence supporting their position. How does the state, ethically justify legalizing tobacco and alcohol, yet banning other drugs?
Does the zero tolerance policy make rational or ethical sense? Today we have locked up thousands for minor drug offensives. The illegal drug trade thrives as it did when alcohol was banned. What are we accomplishing?
In the early 1900s, we amended the constitution banning alcohol. It did not significantly reduce the use of alcohol rather it resulted in an active trade in contraband alcohol. The amendment was reversed after a few years. The illegal trade disappeared. Now that it is legal, does the use of alcohol present a serious problem for the nation? No.
Drugs are easily available today, in large quantities, if we are to believe the media, yet we are not swimming in drug addicts. Does anyone know the population of true drug addicts? How does that population compare to the population which uses the cancer causing drug tobacco or those using the legal drug alcohol? I would venture to say that the population of true drug addicts is small. The major harm to the nation is to the individuals incarcerated for minor drug offenses and the cost of fignting an ineffective war on drugs which in turn encourages a dangerous trade in illegal drugs.
Do irrational, illogical standards of medical morality and ethics guide our national policies rather than rationality and justice? I vote yes!
Is it ethical for the nation or the state, to control the following medical practices if the individual wishes to participate? I’m discussing ethics not the law. I believe that these are personal choices and that the state has no ethical authority to interfere.
a. Use of drugs that are legal in other nations but not here. Drugs that are legally available in other countries may help an individual when drugs currently available in the US are not as effective.
b. Use of experimental drugs. Experimental drugs undergoing human blind test may help an individual, should it not be his choice?
c. Medical use of marijuana. The same argument as above.
d. Personal use of drugs now illegal.
In the last case ( d ) and as a second point the state will claim that it has an obligation to protect its citizens against the abuse of certain habit forming drugs is this a valid ethical position or a sophism? I don’t have the figures nor do I have the energy to pursue them however, intuition leads me to the conclusion that there is little valid evidence supporting their position. How does the state, ethically justify legalizing tobacco and alcohol, yet banning other drugs?
Does the zero tolerance policy make rational or ethical sense? Today we have locked up thousands for minor drug offensives. The illegal drug trade thrives as it did when alcohol was banned. What are we accomplishing?
In the early 1900s, we amended the constitution banning alcohol. It did not significantly reduce the use of alcohol rather it resulted in an active trade in contraband alcohol. The amendment was reversed after a few years. The illegal trade disappeared. Now that it is legal, does the use of alcohol present a serious problem for the nation? No.
Drugs are easily available today, in large quantities, if we are to believe the media, yet we are not swimming in drug addicts. Does anyone know the population of true drug addicts? How does that population compare to the population which uses the cancer causing drug tobacco or those using the legal drug alcohol? I would venture to say that the population of true drug addicts is small. The major harm to the nation is to the individuals incarcerated for minor drug offenses and the cost of fignting an ineffective war on drugs which in turn encourages a dangerous trade in illegal drugs.
Do irrational, illogical standards of medical morality and ethics guide our national policies rather than rationality and justice? I vote yes!
