Is using opiates ever justified?

September 19th, 2011

Over the centuries, we’ve been looking for a magic bullet to give instant pain relief. One of the earliest discoveries was based on the poppy. Depending on how the plant is processed, a range of different drugs can be produced. But there’s always been a problem – the extracts are addictive. Even short-term use can produce destructive consequences. When there were no alternatives, significant numbers of people were hooked, sometimes when only suffering minor symptoms. This led to increasing regulation and control as government grew concerned over the social consequences. The first steps were to make all the opiate drugs prescription only. This has never been a perfect system. Drugs always leak on to the streets when the rewards for illegal distribution are sufficiently high. But with the arrival of more effective alternates, it’s been slightly easier to control the level of addiction. Except control is never perfect. The death rates show more Americans die through the abuse of prescription medication than through the use of heroine and cocaine combined.

We’re the most heavily medicated group of people on the face of the planet. It’s a sad fact more teens experiment with painkillers than cigarettes. Yet every time a state or the federal government suggests tightening up on the prescription of painkillers, there’s an outcry. The libertarians among us believe we all have an absolute right to take whatever drugs we want. There should be no legal limits when the only victims are ourselves. So attempts to discipline doctors for overprescribing the narcotic painkillers often stall. It’s at this point the argument gets mixed up with the problems of end-of-life care.

There’s a strong view in many states that people should be allowed to die with dignity. This means, say, a cancer patient should be given high doses of painkillers even though this will accelerate death. The pro-lifers object saying this is murder, i.e. not death caused by the cancer, but death caused by the drugs. Yet, if lawmakers limit the use of these more powerful drugs without multiple exceptions, people who suffer chronic severe pain may be left without relief. Sometimes the pain from arthritis demands the use of the most powerful drugs. If the discretion of a doctor has been limited, many may be left in pain. Read the rest of this entry »

What about the deductible?

September 19th, 2011

We need to go back to basics to understand what the decision really means on the deductible. The idea of insurance is very simple. If you don’t have a policy, you carry all the cost of loss. That means, if anything goes wrong, you pay out of your own pocket. Think of this as self-insurance. But, if you belong to a group that shares the cost of loss, this can save you money. Let’s say you insure your vehicle along with several thousand other people. Not everyone will have an accident so, when it comes to dividing up the cost of replacement or repair among all the members of the group, you all pay less than if you were uninsured and had an accident. Everyone pays a little, but the unlucky ones claim back a lot. This is a great system. For those of you who like politics, it’s a perfect example of socialism in action. It redistributes money collected by the group to those who need it most.

For those of a libertarian persuasion, belonging to a communist conspiracy like this is outrageous. But then consider the reality. In all but three states, it’s mandatory for all drivers to carry insurance. The politicians in these states have insulted the people by forcing a socialist plan on to them. Worse, these politicians do it in the name of financial responsibility. The argument goes as follows. In our great country, we have a rule that if you are at fault, the courts can order you to pay compensation to everyone you have injured. As a government, we discussed whether to pass a law forcing you to save money just in case you get sued. That would mean, every year, you have to produce your bank account to show a minimum amount in place. The government decided this infringed your liberty. Everyone should be free to spend as much of their money as possible. But you would be financially irresponsible if you do not have some money available just in case you’re sued. So making you pay a few dollars a year to carry insurance is the least invasive way of protecting your privacy. Read the rest of this entry »