Paul Hsieh

Sep 022015

This is belated notification of one of Forbes column from last month: “Free Speech 1, FDA 0“.

I discuss an update to my earlier Forbes piece on drug company Amarin’s fight to engage in free speech in the form of off-label marketing of one of its products.

Basically, Amarin wanted to give truthful medical information to doctors which would allow them to more effectively use one of their drugs in a way that was legal, but not FDA-approved. The FDA forbade Amarin from engaging in such speech, and Amarin sued the FDA.

Last week, Amarin won an important legal victory in federal court. Judge Paul Engelmayer came down firmly on the side of free speech.

For more details see the full text of, “Free Speech 1, FDA 0“.

(Earlier Forbes piece, “Drug Company Amarin Stands Up For Free Speech Against FDA“, 5/8/2015.)


My latest Forbes piece is now out: “The Positive Value of Negative Drug Trials“.

I discuss the unfortunate bias against publishing “negative” scientific results that show a drug doesn’t have much clinical benefit, and why it’s in the self-interest of drug companies to still report these.

In particular, I highlighted two interesting facts:

1) Most drug trial results are still not being reported to a central registry.

2) Negative results funded by private industry (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) are more likely to be reported than from government-funded research.

Fortunately, free market incentives are driving more drug companies towards full disclosure of both positive and negative study results — which will benefit patients.

For more details, read the full text of “The Positive Value of Negative Drug Trials“.

Aug 112015

My July 29th Forbes column is available: “Genuine Charity Requires Freedom“.

I discuss the case of the amazingly generous man James Harrison, whose voluntary charity has helped save the lives of 2 million Australian babies. In Harrison’s case, he literally gave of himself to help others in the form of over 1,100 voluntary blood donations.

I then discuss the nature of charity, why it requires freedom, and how compulsory “giving” destroy the morality of charity.

For more details, read the full text of “Genuine Charity Requires Freedom“.


Aug 102015

PJ Media has posted my latest short column, “In Praise of the Market Economy“.

One of my take-home points is that the prosperity created by the modern market economy creates both material and spiritual freedom unimaginable to our ancestors of 200 years ago.


Jul 102015

US News & World Report had a nice piece on the debate over whether gun violence should be considered a “public health” issue, and they quoted me as explaining why it should not be:

But some medical providers say doctors should stay out of the debate. Dr. Paul Hsieh, co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, says he views gun crime and violence as predominantly about criminal justice and individual rights.

“I remain deeply skeptical of any attempts to frame important public policy debates as also ‘public health’ issues, especially when it concerns a long-running political controversy,” says Hsieh, who writes on health care policy from a free-market perspective for “Pretty much any public policy issue will ultimately have some sort of effects on the lives and well-being of Americans – but that doesn’t mean they should all be considered topics of ‘public health.’”

People are concerned that sharing information about gun ownership with doctors may not remain private, he wrote in a Forbes piece. “In short, I believe this undermines the critical doctor-patient trust necessary for the good practice of medicine,” he says.

I thought they characterized my views fairly, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that they even turned the quote into one of the lead article graphics!



My latest Forbes column is now up, “Three Good Things In Health Care Innovation“.

I highlight some under-appreciated good developments in health care, centered around the theme that innovations in processes may be less flashy than innovations in technology — but can still save lives.

In particular, I discuss the following:

1) Improvements in cardiac care

2) Improvements in matching kidney transplant donors with recipients

3) Protecting the freedom of direct pay doctors

Our current system is very mixed, with both good and bad elements. Today, I wanted to focus on some of the good elements.

For more details on each, read the full text of “Three Good Things In Health Care Innovation“.


A Radiologist’s Day

 Posted by on 10 June 2015 at 2:00 pm  Funny, Medicine, Technology
Jun 102015

As a radiologist, I really appreciated this comic “A Radiologist’s Day“.  You can click on the image below to see the full-sized version.

(And I bought the shirt at CafePress.)


I posted a quick piece last weekend at Forbes, “Would You Trust A Computer To Knock You Out?

This is loosely based on a talk I just gave at ATLOSCon 2015, “I, For One, Welcome Our New Robotic Overlords“.

I discuss the rise of “smart” systems to augment (and potentially replace) human physicians. And why I welcome them.

And thanks to Hanah Volokh for letting me quote her!



Note from Diana: Sorry that I didn’t post this announcement when the column was published! I didn’t realize that it was in the queue.

My latest Forbes column is now up: “Perverse Incentives and VA Health Scandals“.

I discuss the perverse incentives underlying the numerous VA health scandal. Too many on the political Left (such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman) are quick to condemn perverse incentives in the private health system, while failing to mention similar (or worse) perverse incentives in government-run health systems.

Incentives matter.


Note from Diana: Sorry that I didn’t post this announcement when the column was published! I didn’t realize that it was in the queue.

My latest Forbes column discusses the latest debate over raising the legal age for smoking: “Smoking Is Bad, But 18-Year-Olds Should Be Allowed to Smoke“.

In particular, any debate on this should include the following three questions:

1) Is it the government’s job to stop legal adults from making unhealthy life choices?

2) Is it right for the government to restrict the freedom of adults over 18, because others under 18 might be more tempted to smoke?

3) Whose body is it, anyways?

People don’t always make the best choices for themselves.  But in a free society, they should be able to do so, provided they aren’t violating the rights of others.



Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha