I’m a gastroenterologist and I should be against obesity. I should counsel patients who have reached a designated rung on the body mass index (BMI) ladder on the risks of carrying excessive poundage and the benefits of achieving a more streamlined silhouette. I should encourage them to pursue a regular pattern of exercise and to choose food and beverage items wisely. I should advocate that the optimal tactic to achieve and maintain weight loss is to adopt a sustainable lifestyle change, rather than engage in a short distance sprint.
Any controversy so far? I doubt it. While I want my patients, and indeed everyone, to make wise choices in life, I won’t make them do it. Doctors advise and patients decide. Intelligent folks who know the risks of their choices are entitled to make them freely.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a RINO (Republican in name only), has recently issued a citywide sugary drink ban that has made news across the country and beyond. While there are loopholes that will allow some of the sugary spirits to pass through, the ban is still far reaching and will leave many New Yorkers parched. Did the governor choose wisely here?
There’s a conflict between an individual’s right to make personal choices and the state’s obligation to create sound public policies to serve the greater good. The governor and his acolytes argue that the millions of excessive pounds that are weighing down the Big Apple are costing the city gazillions of dollars in lost productivity and medical expenses. Opponents reel from another governmental edict controlling their personal lives.
If you agree with Bloomberg, then how far can and should the government go to control our behaviors? Who makes the decisions on what activities we engage in, us or the government? Who decides if an activity is meritorious or injurious?
If you support the soda ban, explain why you wouldn’t support the following proposals.
- Ice cream and candy will now be available only by a doctor’s prescription.
- Any individual who is 10 pounds over ideal body weight, as defined by the government, will be terminated.
- Cigarette use will now be criminalized and convicts confined until they are rehabilitated to protect their health and the rest of us from the scourge of second hand smoke.
- Car owners of gasoline engines will be taxed heavily to encourage electric car use. Society is entitled to clean air and polluters must pay a price.
- Those who selfishly won’t exercise and are at risk for medical complications that the rest of us have to pay for, will have a percentage of their wages garnished.
- Every Monday the government will choose a designated food item that it deems to be not healthful and it will be banned for the entire week. Restaurants, grocery stores and food trucks will delight in wondering when their ‘number will come up.’ The government can set up a lottery where the public can wager on which ingestible item will be that week’s contraband. Revenue can be used to fund the special ‘cigarette police’ who will be working in 3 shifts rounding up inhalers.
Every day, diet soda and other caffeinated liquids slide down my gullet. Does this promote better health? Probably not, but I want the choice of what I can eat and drink. Let’s have some perspective here. I’m not asking for the right to drive 90 miles per hour on the highway which threatens the state’s interest much more than it would protect my right to speed on the open road. Banning soda and other sweet elixirs doesn’t meet this test. Indeed, if government encroachment continues, it may drive many of us to drink. See you at ‘happy hour.’
By Michael Kirsch, MD
Michael Kirsch, MD, is a full time practicing physician and writer. He writes regularly at MD Whistleblower about the joys and challenges of medical practice including controversies in the doctor-patient relationship, medical ethics and measuring medical quality.Visit website | More posts by Author
Appreciate comment. I think there should be a similar process of addressing issues and controversies from either side of the political spectrum. Must weigh the state's interests against the individual's. If a person makes an unwise financial investment and loses $, should the state bail him out? If a person who can afford medical insurance chooses not to purchase it, is he entitled to medical care that he cannot afford? I'm not answering the latter question, only posing the query.
To follow your argument's logic in the opposite direction, then, recognizing we all should have the right and freedom to make the choices which influence our health and well being, I presume you fully support: - legalizing all drugs: cocaine, heroin, meth, crack - suicide - no mandatory health insurance, and giving the hospitals legal "coverage" to not treat anyone who is uninsured, after all it was their choice to risk it, too bad if they're in a car accident - removing Medicare and Social Security. Hey, if you want to retire, if you want healthcare, save for it yourself don't ask Uncle Sam to do it for you Billions of dollars are spent by industry getting us to buy their food and products, and companies have the right to spend like that. But because many of these food items, in particular, appeal to our basest animal needs (salt and fat) we probably do need some help or tools to help resist the marketing onslaught. In this particular case, your right to overindulge in soda is not limited, you just haveto more deliberately choose to do it. Instead of off-handedly ordering a medium drink that is a quart of liquid, you will have to order 3 large drinks, each of which is of modest size.