Antibiotics

[Danoff]

This is probably one of the more difficult subjects for libertarians to discuss, because it's an opportunity for one person's freedom to directly affect another person's life, sometimes in a deadly way. It's a subject I personally find difficult to discuss - and since that's what I come to GTPlanet for, let's discuss.

First of all, in the US nobody gets prophylactic systemic antibiotics (as opposed to antibiotic sanitizers) unless going through surgery or getting a prosthetic (probably surgery again), or if you're taking some serious immune suppressing drugs. They're tightly controlled because doctors don't want you breeding antibiotic-resistant strains in your body by taking just enough to kill off some of the bacteria but leaving enough behind that they evolve resistance (some bacteria have lifecycles as short as 20 minutes, so evolution occurs quickly).

All of this makes perfect sense until you consider that our farmers pump livestock full of antibiotics all the time despite a lack of disease or surgery:

http://amrls.cvm.msu.edu/pharmacolo...ls-for-prophylactic-or-metaphylactic-purposes

I've read that 80% of all antibiotics used in the US are used on livestock, and we breed antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria fast in this country, often within the same calendar year that a new antibiotic is released. This actually results in people dying of infections which no antibiotics can cure, and the expectation is for this to increase in the future.

Obviously something is out of balance. As a libertarian I want to say that antibiotics should be free for all people to use as they see fit, and that if you take them irresponsibly you should get sued or jailed for creating a drug resistant strain. But I realize that practically speaking that's almost impossible. If you could find the person who created a strain of bacteria that couldn't be stopped, and you could prove in court that it was their fault, they're probably dead anyway.

But the other side of the coin is that if we're controlling antibiotics tightly for humans, doesn't it make sense to take the same precautions for animals? What we're doing right now seems wildly irresponsible.

Thoughts?

 

[Spurgy 777]

Control antibiotics for both people and animals, and only prescribe them when necessary.

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's a big issue facing the NHS currently, as many people see it as their right to receive antibiotics for even a viral infection. And then when people do receive them for the right reasons people stop taking them as soon as they feel better, thus preventing the eradication of the bacteria.

The use of antibiotics in animals is something I don't know enough about. What are the ramifications of not treating the animals? Does it just concern rare or raw meat?

 

[Danoff]

What are the ramifications of not treating the animals? Does it just concern rare or raw meat?

Higher costs associated with meat. Fewer animals will survive and develop to the point of slaughter. Those that do may have suffered an illness and not reached the same weight as they would have otherwise, so less meat per animal.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Depending on the disease, not treating it will lead to extermination of entire stocks of livestock (including healthy animals) to prevent the disease from spreading. We have had that happen a couple of times in The Netherlands. However, in these cases it was a matter of no vaccine being present for the given disease. It looks to me like you always end up in the same situation regardless eventually.

 

[Zenith]

Control antibiotics for both people and animals, and only prescribe them when necessary.

Wow! What a well-reasoned and supported post. Thank you for adding much needed data, facts, and logic to this discussion.

 

[KSaiyu]

Danoff = David Cameron?

Superbugs threaten return to dark ages

Britain will lead a global fightback against antibiotic-resistant superbugs to prevent the world from being “cast back into the dark ages of medicine”, David Cameron is to announce today.

The rise of untreatable bacteria threatens an “unthinkable scenario” where minor infections could once again kill, the prime minister told The Times in a warning about what he described as one of the biggest health threats facing the world.

Tens of thousands of people are already dying of infections that have evolved resistance to common treatments and the World Health Organisation has warned that routine operations and minor scratches could become fatal if nothing is done.

Mr Cameron has become the first world leader to speak out about the threat, signalling escalating global concern at the highest level.

He believes that he has the agreement of President Obama and Angela Merkel for co-ordinated action to find new drugs after raising the issue with them privately at a G7 summit last month.

“This is not some distant threat but something happening right now,” Mr Cameron said. “If we fail to act, we are looking at an almost unthinkable scenario where antibiotics no longer work and we are cast back into the dark ages of medicine where treatable infections and injuries will kill once again.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Wow! What a well-reasoned and supported post. Thank you for adding much needed data, facts, and logic to this discussion.

No worries But seriously, I don't have the time to add any detail, I was just giving a very basic summary of my thoughts after reading through the OP, simply because I wanted to, is there a problem with that? I might get round to elaborating in future, but that post will do me for now.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff = David Cameron?

Superbugs threaten return to dark ages

I read a similar article which prompted my thinking about the subject and posting here. The article has an ax to grind, but I still think it makes some good points:

https://medium.com/@fernnews/imagining-the-post-antibiotics-future-892b57499e77

 

[Omnis]

The thing is, whole herds are culled if there is an outbreak. If it evolves beyond the scope of antimicrobials, kill it with fire.

 

[KSaiyu]

I read a similar article which prompted my thinking about the subject and posting here. The article has an ax to grind, but I still think it makes some good points:

https://medium.com/@fernnews/imagining-the-post-antibiotics-future-892b57499e77

I think the dangers can't be overstated enough, and that article does an excellent job of summarising the problems we are facing both in the future and at this moment (Would also like to thank the commenter who linked to a story highlighting faeces transplantation as a cure for C. Diff infections).

 

[Keef]

As a libertarian

Wouldn't you support the idea of private organizations such as doctor's groups, or in the case of farm animals veterinary groups, banding together to create, promote and enforce actual science and professional standards independent of the government that industries don't have to abide by but probably would because it's their own professionals designing the healthiest policy?

Or maybe that's totally impractical and people would just make policy to benefit themselves.

 

[Danoff]

Wouldn't you support the idea of private organizations such as doctor's groups, or in the case of farm animals veterinary groups, banding together to create, promote and enforce actual science and professional standards independent of the government that industries don't have to abide by but probably would because it's their own professionals designing the healthiest policy?

Or maybe that's totally impractical and people would just make policy to benefit themselves.

What is the mode that causes that to occur? How is it in their best interest to band together and make their lives more difficult - especially in the farming industry. It's possible that people can become well enough educated to stop buying meat from animals treated with antibiotics because they're worried about a resistant strain developing and affecting people in other states or countries... but it's tough to see that happening.

It's as though you can commit an untraceable crime. It's a behavior that people can engage that can put the people around them in danger, but which we cannot easily identify after the fact and prove damages.

 

[Keef]

What is the mode that causes that to occur? How is it in their best interest to band together and make their lives more difficult - especially in the farming industry.

Maybe I've got too much faith in humanity but it seems that when you shift focus from short-term benefits provided by a government (assuming an end to subsidies, etc.) then long-term sustainability and self-reliance becomes a more important consideration. Currently, farmers might be more interested in making their quotas to get their subsidies. If those subsidies don't exist then they need to make sure they don't ruin their livelyhood because they might need it 50 years down the road. Overusing antibiotics might be one of the things they'll have to consider - do they want to make their quick buck right now or have something left when they need it years down the road? Because in a libertarian society there wouldn't be any help from the government.

 

[KSaiyu]

Drug created to replace antibiotics

 

[Keef]

EDIT: I've already said my piece apparently.