Health freedom movement
The health freedom movement is a collective of organizations, activists, consumers, medical practitioners, and product manufacturers advocating for unregulated access to healthcare and alternative medical treatments. Gaining prominence in the United States during the 1990s, the movement arose in response to legislation like the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, which shifted the regulatory burden of dietary supplements away from manufacturers and allowed for greater consumer choice. The movement, characterized by its decentralized nature, opposes government regulation, viewing it as a threat to personal choice and advocating for freedom in all healthcare decisions, including the use of vitamins and alternative therapies.
Key objectives include opposing mandatory health measures such as vaccinations, water fluoridation, and government health programs, which are seen as infringements on individual rights. The movement has garnered bipartisan support and has been embraced by various political figures. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly amplified the movement’s visibility, as skepticism about vaccines and public health mandates grew among certain segments of the population. Overall, the health freedom movement reflects a broader cultural discourse on personal autonomy in healthcare, drawing attention to diverse perspectives on wellness and regulation.
On this Page
Health freedom movement
DEFINITION: A collective of organizations, consumers, activists, product manufacturers, and medical practitioners campaigning worldwide for unregulated access to healthcare.
Overview
The term “health freedom movement” gained currency in the United States during the 1990s amid public debate about proposed legislation concerning dietary supplements. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was signed into law in 1994 by United States (US) President Bill Clinton, who welcomed the act as a victory for consumers. DSHEA did represent a significant step forward for freedom of choice in healthcare. Putting the onus on the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to prove a given supplement’s potential danger, rather than obliging supplement manufacturers to provide proof of their products’ safety and efficacy, the legislation largely exempted dietary supplements from federal regulation.
The health freedom movement had bipartisan support. DSHEA was supported by both Democratic senator Tom Harkin and conservative Republican senator Orrin Hatch. The health freedom movement has also been embraced in the United States by the Texas free market libertarian representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul and in Great Britain by King Charles III.
One reason the movement remains so decentralized is that its primary goal is opposition to regulation, which is, by definition, site-specific. Another is that the movement is adamantly opposed to centralization, which is viewed as inimical to the very notion of choice. Trade blocs, it is argued, tend to promote the interests of business, particularly those of agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry, over those of individual countries and their citizens. Of particular concern is the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body established in 1963 by the United Nations. The stated goals of the commission are protecting consumer health and ensuring fair trade practices in international food trade. In 2005, the commission adopted the Codex Alimentarius, guidelines for standardization of dietary supplements, which quickly raised the suspicions of the health freedom movement. These suspicions were also fueled by the European Union’s (EU) adoption of the Food Supplements Directive (2002), aimed at tightening rules concerning sales of vitamins and other dietary supplements.
Key Objectives
The movement strives for freedom of choice in every area of healthcare, including mainstream and conventional medical treatments. Nonetheless, activists driving the movement tend to favor medical alternatives such as orthomolecular therapy and naturopathic medicine. Unfettered access to all manner of vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other supplements unites them, as does their general mistrust of pharmaceutical manufacturers. Like advocates of antiaging medicine, health freedom activists argue for the nutritional prevention and treatment of chronic diseases, advocating the use of, for example, high dosages of vitamins C and E despite a dearth of research supporting such therapies. Any restrictions on supplements are viewed as favoring the pharmaceutical industry, which many believe has a vested interest not in promoting public health but in perpetuating disease.
A corollary to the movement’s demands for freedom of choice in nutrition is its belief that persons should be free to opt out of overarching government health programs, such as water fluoridation, mandatory childhood vaccination, national electronic health records, and the sharing of genetic information without patient consent. In March 2007, then Virginia governor Tim Kaine signed legislation allowing state citizens over the age of fourteen to refuse medical treatment for ailments such as cancer, heralding a victory for health freedom. In the 2010s, several states challenged federal mandates requiring uninsured citizens to purchase health insurance.
Perhaps the most high-profile impact of the health freedom movement occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 and 2021. COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by a virus discovered in China in 2019. By early 2020, it had spread across the globe, causing numerous disruptions to societies and economies in most nations. By late 2024, the disease had killed more than 7 million people. Soon after the pandemic began, researchers began working on a vaccine for COVID-19. Using cutting-edge technology, they were able to develop several effective and safe vaccines by the end of 2020.
As the vaccines began to be made available to the American public, an unexpected backlash developed among some segments of the US population. Fueled by misinformation disseminated on social media, many people questioned the vaccines and refused to receive a shot. Although clinical trials had proven the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, many publicly doubted the science behind the trials and instead focused on false information that appeared to reinforce their opinions. In addition, they also questioned the wearing of masks, a practice recommended by medical experts to reduce the transmission of the disease.
Because the movement cannot legitimately pursue its goals in what would otherwise be the proper forum (science), health freedom turns to the political arena. Laws like the foregoing, critics argue, succeed only in further disenfranchising sick, poor, frightened, and desperate persons who pursue unproven medical treatments not because they wish to exercise their freedom of choice but because they have, or have been led to believe they have, no other options.
As the twenty-first century progressed, the health freedom movement only appeared to gain more acceptance, moving from fringe political groups into the mainstream. Skepticism of the medical establishment and government health agencies united many on both sides of the political spectrum. The election of President Donald Trump in 2024 furthered the goals of the health freedom movement due to his close association with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a fervent supporter of health freedom. Officials from Kennedy's former presidential campaign launched a new super Political Action Committee (PAC) called The MAHA Alliance (Make America Healthy Again), which raised millions of dollars. Suspicion of all vaccines, not just those associated with COVID-19, remained a key focus of the movement. Other issues important to the movement included government regulation, restrictions on alternative therapies, distrust of federal health agencies, and rejection of public health mandates.
Bibliography
Ezell, Jerel M. "The Medicalization of Freedom: How Anti-science Movements Use the Language of Personal Liberty and How We Can Address It." Nature Medicine, vol. 28, no. 2, 2022, p. 219, doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01640-y. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
Hirsch, Zach. "'Health Freedom' Activists Gain Seats On Major Hospital's Board." NPR, 21 Dec. 2022, www.npr.org/2022/12/21/1144798353/in-florida-health-freedom-activists-exert-influence-over-a-major-hospital. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
Hongoltz-Hetling, Matthew. "A Doctor's War Against the Right-Wing Medical-Freedom Movement." The New Republic, 28 Feb. 2023, newrepublic.com/article/170255/doctors-war-right-wing-medical-freedom-movement. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
Hotez, Peter J. "America’s Deadly Flirtation With Antiscience and the Medical Freedom Movement." Journal of Clinical Investigation, 25 Feb. 2021, www.jci.org/articles/view/149072. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Resistance to Public Health, No Longer Fringe, Gains Foothold in G.O.P. Politics." The New York Times, 9 Oct. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/us/politics/medical-freedom-public-health-rfk-trump.html. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.