The Dems' Main Narrative for the Schumer Shutdown Is Falling Apart
CNN's Van Jones Reveals What Schumer Told Him Three Months Ago About Shutting...
AG Bondi to Appeal 'Woefully Insufficient' Sentence for Justice Kavanaugh's Would-be Assas...
No, NYT, We Don't Need to Feel Bad for These People
Scott Wiener: Accusations of Fascism Will Continue Until Conservatives Bend the Knee to...
Colorado Authorities Reopen Investigation Into Death of Hunter S. Thompson
Maxwell House Coffee’s Temporary Rebrand Is Something Else
Dirty Hospitals Are to Blame for Superbug Deaths
Hope Amid Chaos in Nigeria
Flexing Fraud: Fake Gym at Center of $3M PPP Scam
The Train of Progress Must Not Be Derailed
Trump Ends the Green Scam — Now the Crying Caucus Is Out of...
Make Protecting Animals Great Again: The Trump Administration Is Ending Animal Cruelty
Hochu v. Mamdani: The Upcoming War Over NYC Tax Increases
More Government Control Over College Sports Is the Wrong Fix
OPINION

Dismantling the Nannystate, Bit by Bit

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

The premise of the Nannystate, the place to which all progressive roads lead, is that the people are not informed enough, smart enough, and do not care enough to take care of themselves. Therefore, we all need the state to act as our safe-guard and intermediary.

Advertisement

It's a weird construct at odds with the vision of America upon which most of us were raised. We are, it used to be taught, descended from pioneers, rugged individualists who built a nation out of the wilderness. This admittedly is a romanticized version of what really happened but closer to the truth than not.

The Nannystate, which employs regulators and bureaucrats to care for our needs from cradle to grave, is the bane of everyone who purports to love liberty. Though there may be some complaints raised about specific laws and regulations, we do not in general object to the way the state protects us from others. What is truly bothersome to many is the way in which it seeks to protect us from ourselves.

All that may be fine for Europe - though it can be argued the rise of populist movements in some countries is the product of a generally benign nationalistic impulse arising out of resentment at the way Brussels is trying to run everything - but not for the United States. We are a free people and expect to be treated by the government with respect for our decision-making capacity.

This is particularly true where matters of life and death are concerned. We understand what's at stake and wish to be empowered to make, in concert with our doctors and our families and friends, informed decisions about our care and what is to be done. Sometimes though the federal government stands in the way, particularly in terminal cases where bureaucratic roadblocks prevent dying individuals from trying experimental, unproven remedies that, if not curative, could at least be life-extending because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will not permit it.

Advertisement

On its face, this is nonsensical. What does it matter to the government that a person with months to live chooses to try a treatment not yet proven effective when they are going to die soon anyway? A lot, apparently, since the FDA sometimes says "No" to patients who want to try something unproven - when even once is one time too many.

During his State of the Union address President Donald Trump called on Congress to enact what is generally referred to as "right to try" legislation guaranteeing the government will not interfere if a patient who is fully informed of the risks of doing so alongside the potential benefits opts to try a drug not yet proven effective but has cleared Phase I of the FDA's safety protocols. It's an approach supported by FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and by Vice President Mike Pence, who signed a similar measure into law while governor of Indiana that keeps bureaucrats in that state from interfering in such cases.

Thanks in part to the president's call to action, but also because so many people have worked on the idea for so long, it's passed through the Senate. A slightly different version of the proposal passed through the U.S. House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis, 267 to 149 on Wednesday.

Both bills are good. Each one creates a new, alternative pathway for patients who do not qualify for a clinical trial, mandates informed consent on the part of the patient, and requires reporting to the FDA any time an unproven drug is used and any adverse effects that may be experienced. They also provide liability protections to manufacturers, suppliers, physicians, hospitals, and other involved in the process unless reckless or willful misconduct, gross negligence, or an intentional tort can be shown to have occurred.

Advertisement

With seemingly all the bases covered, all that's left is for the Senate to pass what the House just approved so it can become law. If it saves one life, it will be well worth it. Moreover, it's a small but important step back in the direction of Americans being responsible for themselves rather than relying on the government to keep the safe from harm, morning though night.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement