| >Could this be prevented? Nope Pharmaceutical marketing has a role in antibiotics mis-usage, and it can be regulated a lot better. I know people that take AB for the flu, or simply don't take the whole prescription. But at least where I live one cannot get AB without a prescription. Why would a doctor prescribe AB for common viral diseases? Bahamas, that's why. >We can move those lines, and I think we should, but eliminating them entirely is absolutely certain to harm innocent people at a level I am unwilling to support. I agree. It's a bit like seat belts or bike helmets: they're mandatory for our own good. Before it was mandatory, people use it if they wanted and took unnecessary risk. But there's always a fuzzy middle ground... The general reaction for substance usage goes around 'well it's really up to you, unless you're driving/someone depends on you'. But as for driving a bike not wearing a helmet, people are a lot less lenient, even if the only person harmed is the self. And this is even before considering welfare, hospital expenditure and such. Do we need protection from ourselves? Does this just boil down to economic and state welfare efficiency? Less diseases is good because Economy?
Or is this a way of maneuvering Economy towards a place where economic interest aligns with principles of human dignity? Sometimes I wonder. |
With antibiotics, it's a bit like vaccinations. Vaccinations are as effective as they are because they provide herd immunity. Not everybody is vaccinated and the vaccinations aren't always effective, but enough people are vaccinated so that it provides protection for everyone, including those who haven't been vaccinated.
Antibiotics are similar, though the effect probably has a different name. Bacteria reproduces very, very quickly and the growth is exponential. We already have a problem where bacteria has evolved to be resistant to our current crop of antibiotics.
It's also important to note that developing safe antibiotics is extremely difficult. I believe I read that there are only two new antibiotics currently in the human testing phase and that no new antibiotics have made it to market in over a decade.
So, we already have a problem with antibiotics being over-prescribed and bacteria evolving to survive the attack. This is a known problem and an increase in people taking antibiotics is going to speed this up. This isn't something that's in doubt, it is absolutely what will happen if humans are given unrestricted access to antibiotics.
We will take more, we will see bacteria evolve, and that is going to result in stringer infections that kill people who may have, as individuals, never once abused antibiotic medications. It's not quite the same as herd protection, but it is fairly close.
I'm pretty much in favor of legalizing drugs. I absolutely believe we should be able to take drugs. I even believe we should be allowed to take drugs that have a good chance at killing us. I firmly believe the right to life should also include the right to die.
What I don't believe in is that the right to life includes the right to harm others. With all rights, there is a risk of harm to others. That is just a fact of a free society. The problem here is that these acts will harm many. Many, many people would be harmed by this.
I absolutely support the right to own a firearm. In no way do I support the right of an individual to own a weapon of mass destruction. I'm okay with someone owning a fully automatic firearm. I'm not okay with someone owning a nuclear weapon.
Does that make sense? I'm trying to explain it as well as I can.
It's not really protection from ourselves, unless you mean collectively. It's protection from others who would cause us harm through ignorance. From an economical viewpoint, healthier people are more productive - to touch on your last thoughts. Fewer diseases is good. Fewer diseased people is even better. Unfettered access is going to increase the number of sick and suffering, and not necessarily through the fault of the afflicted.