Prescription drugs, homophobia and Bad Economics: Why Andy Ho is Wrong

Posted by admin on January 30th, 2005 filed in Uncategorized

I used to think that Andy Ho was a bad journalist. Now I think he is dangerously incompetent.

In his latest opinion piece , he rails against ‘big drug firms’ and their ‘undue influence’ on regulaters like the FDA and HSA . Even more reprehensibly, he inveighs against ‘the gay lobby and Aids activists’, weaving a conspiracy theory that appears to have no other purpose other than to satisfy a personal vendetta against homosexuals.

IF YOUR doctor assures you that a new drug is safe because it is ‘FDA-approved’, take that with a pinch of salt. Once upon a time, he could have been right but, now, there is cause for concern. If he seems to be in the dark, shine some light on it for him.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had long been regarded as the world’s gold standard in drug safety review.

Risk is an inescapable fact of human existence. No matter how much people may desire complete certainty, it is not humanly possible. While insurance can distribute and spread risk, and governments can tax or subsidise risk, any set of choices will ultimately face irreducible risks that must be borne by someone ( Higgs : 4). It is not possible for governments to banish risk simply by fiat: Governments are not God.

Andy Ho’s fatal conceit lies in his assumption that science draws a clear and unambigious distinction between ’safe’ and ‘unsafe’. That is not true. Any drug at excessive dosage can be poisonous. Some people have fatal reactions to even the most commonly used over-the-counter drugs. What does this mean? This means that science can attempt to determine the degree and range of risk of any given drug, but the question of whether a drug is ’safe’ or ‘unsafe’ cannot be separated from the subjective condition of the consumer.

Every individual is different in their reactions and requirements to the same kind of drugs. Similarly, every person is different in their willingness to take risks. A very ill person with a 50% chance of dying can very rationally choose to take a drug with a 25% chance of serious side-effects if that drug offers the person the only chance of survival. Another person whose symptoms are not fatal might choose not to take the drug because of the side-effects. Or a person suffering from constant excruciating pain on a daily basis may choose to take a drug that increases the likelihood of stomach ulcers, while someone who is not suffering from chronic pain may choose not to.

Andy Ho thinks the question to be asked is ‘Is drug X safe?’, when the REAL question is ‘Is drug X safe for Ah Kow, Ahmad, Bala or James?’ What Andy Ho proposes, is that it is possible for a group of omniscient, all-knowing bureaucrats controlling a central government agency to determine the ‘right’ level of risk for every single person in Singapore based upon a single measure of what is ’safe’ or ‘unsafe’. Clearly, Andy Ho does not have a grip on reality.
Read the rest of this entry »