But surely Americans cannot be forced to submit to unwanted medical care; doesn't the law require informed consent? Yes, and the Supreme Court has ruled that competent adults cannot be treated against their will. But not everyone is aware of this fact. (It was, for instance, ignored in the Academy-Award winning movie Million Dollar Baby, the ending of which depended on the assumed inability of a conscious heroine to reject treatment.) Arrested criminals must be read their rights, but in medical situations people are often simply handed a consent form and told to sign it. Except for surgery, they generally must sign a blanket consent before even being permitted to see a doctor.

Moreover, the law is unclear when it comes to screening, as opposed to treatment; screening programs don't always provide for opting out. In any case, the vast amount of government indoctrination on health matters goes unchallenged and indeed, meets with widespread approval. One of the reasons I make a point of Stewards of the Flame not being suitable for the same readership as my YA novels is that I don't want parents and librarians to think I'm using my position as a well-lnown YA author to undermine this indoctrination among kids. To adults, however, I am quite open about the fact that I disapprove of most of it. What's best for the health of individuals is not a matter for the goverment to decide. It wouldn't be even if it weren't controversial -- and it is; medical experts don't always agree (more on this under the heading "Heresy in Medicine.") Such decisions depend on personal factors and should not be made by anyone merely on the basis of statistics.

Although in America the government cannot force adults to be treated medically (unless they are deemed "mentally ill," a subject I discuss under "Harmful Psychiatric Treatment"), it can and does force the treatment of children against their parents' wishes. Sometimes, as with vaccination, most states allow exemptions, though parents are generally not informed of this. In other situations, where the life of the child is presumed to be endangered, courts often order treatments that the parents believe will be damaging, and the unfortunate parents must choose between betraying their child's trust and losing custody. This happens not only in cases of religious objection to treatment -- where, tragically, well-meaning parents have too often been convicted of neglect or even murder for avoiding government-approved care -- but in an increasing number of cases of disagreement based on medical controversy. And then there are the millions of children now being given dangerous psychoactive drugs with their parents' full cooperation, merely because schools and school-approved therapists say they should be.

It goes without saying that government control over prescription drugs is a serious restriction on freedom, not only in the sense of freedom from government interference with individual choice, but because it makes those who require medication continuously dependent on the officially-licensed medical establishment. Yet so accustomed are we to this control that most of us aren't even aware that it did not exist until 1938. Before that, Americans could buy whatever drugs they wished, except narcotics; doctors' prescriptions were mere advice, not legal authorization. There are a few people today (and I am one of them) who believe that the present law is wrong -- that the government has no right to dictate what citizens may or may not consume -- and that its power with regard to drugs should be limited to ensuring truth in labeling. But the vast majority are concerned only with whether or not presently-illegal drugs should be legalized, an issue that obscures the real problem. By declaring some drugs too dangerous for public consumption (which indeed they are) the current law promotes the idea that others are both safe and desirable. Yet no drug is "safe"; with few if any exceptions, all have "side" effects that are either risky or downright damaging -- though many are the lesser of evils compared to serious illness. The public is urged to take authorized drugs to relieve every conceivable condition, potential future condition, or discontent -- and then society wonders why some turn to unauthorized ones in pursuit of the same goal. Adults are treated like children, while children are prevented from developing into responsible, self-sufficient adults.

As C. D. Herrera has written, "The state's close involvement with medical research, education and certification prevents it from being a disinterested spectator . . . [its] close involvement with medicine dictates a particular interpretation of what is in the child's best interests." I might add that political considerations, not to mention lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry, strongly influence its interpretation of what is in anybody's best interests. Furthermore, as Peter says in Stewards of the Flame, "Whenever health authorities succeed in overcoming some actual problem, such as contagion, they are left with a bureaucracy that must justify its existence by medicalizing more and more aspects of simply being human." Those of us who care about medical autonomy cannot afford to be complacent.

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship." --Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence. I recently came across this quote and found that it appears at many websites. I was delighted and wanted to incorporate it in publicity for my novel, but unfortunately I soon discovered that its authenticity is at best questionable. Although Wikipedia includes it, Thomas Szasz, an eminent psychiatrist who himself opposes all forms of government compulsion, declares that it is bogus -- no verifiable source for it has ever been supplied and it is inconsistent with Rush's view of medicine. Too bad, as I think the idea behind it is true.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, 1970 This is an even more apt quote. I got it from David Harsanyi's recent book Nanny State, which I urge everyone who objects to government interference in private lives to read. I've now found that the quote appears in many places on the Web.

Here is a small sampling of links to material dealing with government involvement in medical care that either constitutes, or verges upon, compulsion:

N.Y. Diabetes-Tracking Plan Draws Concern, David B. Caruso, Associated Press, July 25, 2005. "A century after New York became the first American city to track people with infectious diseases as a way to halt epidemics, officials here propose a similar system to monitor people with diabetes, a non-contagious foe.... The plan would require medical labs to report to the city the results of a certain type of test that indicates how well individual patients are controlling their diabetes."

New York City Starts To Monitor Diabetics, Washington Post, January 11, 2006. "The unprecedented step is being hailed by many health experts.... Some public health experts, ethicists and privacy advocates, however, say that the initiative raises serious concerns about confidentiality and is an alarming government intrusion into people's medical care."

Mayor Bloomberg, M.D., New York Sun, April 4, 2006. "Given the complete lack of protest in response to the new mandated diabetes reporting and tracking scheme ... it is highly likely that we will see proposals to mandate reporting of serum cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and body mass indices, followed by city interventions to prod us into changing our behavior to reduce the risks of heart attack, stroke, and the spectrum of maladies associated with obesity. This new diabetes regulation is, in short, a harbinger of more intrusive legislation to come -- all in the name of 'public health.'"

The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act: An Assault on Civil Liberties in the Name of Homeland Security, Heritage Foundation, June 10, 2002. "Although this model legislation was recommended as a means to help states protect citizens against bioterrorist attacks and deal with national defense issues, the draft bill goes much, much further. It calls for giving state public health officials broad, new police powers." (The draft bill aroused a storm of protest and was never passed anywhere in its original form -- but the mere fact that the government proposed it says a lot.)

Informed Consent Waived in Public Crisis, CBS News, June 8, 2006 (AP: also appears elsewhere). "In a public health emergency, suspected victims would no longer have to give permission before experimental tests could be run to determine why they're sick, under a federal rule published Wednesday. Privacy experts called the exception unnecessary, ripe for abuse and an override of state informed-consent laws."

State to Check on Residents' Health, Seattle Times, July 20. 2006. "Participants will be asked about their access to health care and whether they have dental problems, osteoporosis, emphysema or cancer. Other questions will center on diet, medications and other risks for disease such as tobacco and alcohol use. A nurse on each survey team will measure blood pressure, pulse, height, weight and waist size. A blood sample will be taken to measure cholesterol and blood sugar.... Officials are not seeking volunteers; participants are being chosen to represent the diverse population of the state."

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons December 2006 newsletter discussing government intrusion on medical care. "Increasingly, approved providers are backed up with the police powers of the state. The FDA and Codex may ban home remedies, while mental health screening, disease registries, and mandatory vaccines and psychoactive drugs proliferate."

Mandatory Health Insurance: Health Care by Force, American for Free Choice in Medicine, June 26, 2006. "'Mandatory insurance' is of course an exercise in euphemism. It means 'do what we say or become a criminal.' It does not even mean "go into the marketplace and buy 'insurance' -- which would be bad enough. No government is going to require you to buy health insurance without regulating in exquisite detail what it must cover and what you must do."

Social Security and Forced Government Health Care . American for Free Choice in Medicine, April 29, 2005. "When politicians proclaim that you have a 'right' to health care ... they want unlimited power to force others to provide you with health care -- whatever the cost. They also mean that you have no right to manage and provide for your own health care, indeed no right to any health care whatsoever but that which is provided and approved by the government."

Video: The Drugging of Our Children (trailer) Video: America's Chemical Angels (trailer)

Doctor's Orders: Parents Battle Medical Authorities for Control of Their Children, Reason, February 2001. "The conflict between a parent's wishes and the state's notions of how to protect children's health has traditionally been fought on religious grounds, often through cases involving Christian Science or other sects that reject standard medical care. But in a largely secular contemporary America, such conflicts increasingly go beyond religion." The Nanny State vs. the Family, Liberty Papers (blog), July 12, 2006. "Abraham is 16 and technically a minor, but if it's clear that his decision is really his, then what right does the government have to stick a needle in his arm and pump toxic chemicals into his body?" [Later another judge ruled that this boy does have the right to refuse chemotherapy; however, he still must be monitored by a court-appointed doctor.] Hands Off Our Kids, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, March 2007. "The [Texas governor's] Order states: 'Rules. The Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner shall adopt rules that mandate the age appropriate vaccination of all female children for HPV [human papilloma virus] prior to admission to the sixth grade.'" Outraged parents protested that "Parents should not have to get permission from the state to make informed consent medical decisions for their own children.'"

Health Police Gone Crazy, The Lantern, Ohio State University, October 11, 2006. "In a manner not much different from their Nazi predecessors, the anti-smoking community has framed the smoking issue as one of a paternalistic state protecting its weak and downtrodden.... Firearms, fat and alcohol have all been the targets of medical analysis identifying possible health risks and accompanying recommended legislative action. This untamed tyranny of the medical community will continue as long as the lay public greets the health community's legislative pronouncements with tacit acceptance."

Well-Intentioned Food Police May Create Havoc With Children's Diets, New York Times, May 30, 2006. "The schools are overreacting to the so-called obesity epidemic, and in the process are doing our children more harm than good.... These food wars go beyond good sense and good science. They're misguided and red herrings, based more in conjecture and politics than on solid research-based solutions."

Health Visitors or Health Police? AIMS (Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services, a British organization), 2004. "A young woman, expecting her first baby, hears a knock at the door. She opens it, and the woman standing there says she is a health visitor, and can she come in? The woman asks why, and the health visitor says, "Just to see how you are". The woman says she's fine and doesn't need a health visitor, thank you. The health visitor replies, 'If you don't let me in, I shall report you to Social Services.'"

Shots in the Dark, Reason Online, July 1999. "Even when exemptions are available, parents are rarely told that they can turn down vaccinations for their children without repercussions. Some public health officials argue that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be held legally accountable for child neglect. The justification for mandatory vaccination, which used to be protecting the general public from disease carriers, has thus shifted to protecting children from parents who fail to take precautions recommended by the government's experts."

Forced Mental Screening, CHAADA (Children and Adults Against Drugging America). "The greater issue ... is not whether youth mental health screening is appropriate. The real issue is whether the state owns your kids. When the government orders 'universal' mental health screening in schools, it really means 'mandatory.'"

Kidcare: Socialized Medicine Through Government Schools, Institute for Health Freedom, January 20, 1998. "The new children's health care program increases the likelihood that more children will be examined or treated at public schools without parental consent."

Commentary on the North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza, which has been agreed upon by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. "The Plan identifies this Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body as 'decision-makers.' . . . What powers will this foreign-headed coordinating body exercise? The Plan suggests that these include 'the use of antivirals and vaccines; ... social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community gatherings; ... isolation and quarantine.'"

Health Freedom Movement, as explained by Wikipedia in an article containing many links and references. This movement is focused on conflict between the pharmaceutical industry and the advocates (including the manufacturers) of nutritional supplments, which is a larger issue than there is room to deal with here. Though I don't agree with claims for the curative benefits of nutritional supplements, I do support people's right to choose freely in this regard and I strongly oppose government interference with their sale.

Death Is Inevitable, from a Canadian organization called Stop the Health Fanatics which appears to be inactive. I just discovered this page -- it sums up one of the main points of Stewards of the Flame very nicely. "What a tragic irony it would be, if nations where millions of citizens were willing to sacrifice their lives in the struggle to ensure liberty and freedom for all, ended up sacrificing that very liberty and freedom in cowardly and futile attempts to run away from the inevitablity of death, by forcing minimal-risk lifestyles on all of their citizens."