Should doctors be allowed to prescribe placebos?

Presenter: Laura Derksen
Date: 18/11/11

Placebos (sugar pills) have been shown to be effective in treating a range of diseases and symptoms, including pain, depression, anxiety, Parkinson's disease, gastric ulcers, and chronic fatigue syndrome. They seem to work not only by causing a patient to feel better psychologically but also by actually improving certain conditions. 

Given this strange effect, should doctors prescribe placebos, and under what circumstances? 

Should placebo treatments receive NHS funding?

What if the placebo in question is quite expensive?

What if the therapy is administered by someone who believes the treatment to be genuine? 

What if a more effective medicine exists but a patient continues to seek the placebo treatment?

Links:

wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Placebos can work even if a patient doesn't believe in them: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=placebo-effect-a-cure-in-the-mind

The NHS funds homeopathy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/29/ban-homeopathy-from-nhs-doctors?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Sanctions: hurting the citizens or destabilizing the government?

Presenter: Mohammad Vesal
Date: 11/11/11
The use of UN resolutions to impose sanction on countries not respecting the international rules has been an old age device. Countries ratifying sanctions argue they will impose a cost on the government and will convince the authorities (if harsh enough) to obey the international rules. They usually argue the sanctions are for the good of the citizens of the countries and it hold up authorities accountable to the international rules of human rights, ….

Despite these there is no sign about the effectiveness of sanctions in the past and it is not clear how we distinguish between the costs on the government and costs on normal citizens. If anything  the government under sanctions can blame the foreigners for economic failures and raise the sense of unity (and hence authority) in the populace.

In this week discussion let’s consider the example of UN backed and unilateral sanctions against Iran. In the past 4 years the West has imposed new rounds of sanctions to convince the Iranian government to stop its nuclear program. The sanctions prohibit any export of items related to nuclear or military purposes or those that might have dual usage.

The citizens are clearly feeling the pain of the sanctions along various dimensions. The financial transactions with the rest of the world are getting extremely difficult. The civil aviation, shipping industry, oil and gas industry and other industries are affected.

As an example in the past six year, more than 700 Iranians are killed in 13 aircraft crashes and accidents. This is claimed to be mainly because sanctions prevent Iran access to buy new aircrafts or spare parts directly from the suppliers. As another example, many major contractors in Iran oil and gas industry dropped out because of the recent rounds of sanctions and the sector is suffering from underinvestment.



Thinking about the suffering of the citizens and no sign of change in government policies one might wonder about the effectiveness of sanctions and whether this is the right way to go.

How could one possibly justify sanctions on moral grounds?

Is it possible that sanctions stabilize rather than destabilize the government?

What are the costs of the sanctions on those who impose them?!


References:
http://www.economist.com/node/17204603: good overview of the impact of sanctions on Iran
http://www.economist.com/node/18867440: on the recent structural reforms in Iran
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebcf3060-c732-11e0-a9ef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1d7Tw49e6: Aviation Industry and Sanctions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/11/iran-elections-mehdi-karroubi-interview: sanctions helping the regime (interview)

7 billion and counting: Do we have an overpopulation problem?

Presenter: Oliver Pardo

Date: 4/11/10

This year we reached the astonishing number of 7 billion people living in this planet (around 7% of the number of people who have ever lived). Whenever this type of threshold is reached, concerns about our sustainability usually arise.

Is the current population trend sustainable?
Has been Malthus undoubtedly been refuted?
Does having a child have a negative externality on others?
Should the state constrain individuals' fertility choices, like China does?
Is there actually any overpopulation problem?
Is there any bound on the number of people the planet can sustain?

Some background readings:
On China's one child policy: http://www.economist.com/node/16846390
On scepticism of overpopulation: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sanyal3/English
A voice from the other side: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kieran-suckling/7-billion-population_b_1068567.html

Tim Harford on Malthus: http://timharford.com/2011/10/malthuss-ghost-and-baby-number-7bn/

The Limits of the Right to Protest

Presenter: Sam Marden
Date: 28/10/11

Recently the ‘occupy something’ movement has engaged in high profile acts of low-level ‘civil disobedience’ around the world. Most notably in London, where the future of the tent city outside of St. Pauls hangs in the balance, in Oakland California, where protestors were forcibly dispersed, and in New York where protestors crossing the Brooklyn Bridge were arrested.

The right to protest is considered an important element of liberal democracy, and protestors and commentators have compared the occupy movement to the various pro-democracy movements that comprised the Arab spring, it is however not clear the extent to which the protestors enjoy widespread support. Furthermore, many of the protests potentially impose large costs on others. Closure of one of Manhattan’s bridges is extremely costly even if only temporarily, the closure of St. Pauls is said to cost the church £16,000 per day, and adjacent businesses have claimed that revenues are down 80% compared to normal. Unlike more traditional demonstrations, protest camps can continue for long periods of time with St. Pauls protestors vowing to stay for ‘years’. Recent British examples of long running protests include Brian Haws anti-Iraq war camp was in Parliament Square for the best part of a decade, while the anti-Nuclear weapons protest at Greenham Common RAF lasted 20 years.

Questions for debate:

If non-disruptive forms of protest are available should protestors be allowed to protest in a disruptive fashion? To what extent should protestors be allowed to impose costs on others for political gain?

How much does the support of the general movement or specific protest matter? Should intensity of feeling count?

In order to be legitimate should a movement have a cause?

Should legislation strictly define what is and what isn’t an acceptable form of protest, or should the response be determined by public (and political) will, with all the messier legal implications that entails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_protest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Should the fertility industry be regulated?

Presenter: Patrick Blanchenay
Date: 21/10/2011
In Europe, egg donors cannot be paid, but only compensated for their donation. In the UK, the maximum compensation has recently been raised from £250 to £750 for female donors of ovum.
In Europe there is also a limit on how many fertilised embryos can be implanted at once in the womb of the mother; no such restriction exists in the US. In some countries, law restricts conditions of anonymity for sperm donors.

It seems that there are wide discrepancies among developed countries in the realm of assisted fertility.

Should the fertility industry be regulated at all? If so, should we regulate pay/compensation, and the question of anonymity? Has the Coase theorem finally met its limit?

Some suggested readings:
- Compensation for ova donors raised to £750 in the UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15356148
- The US fertility industry is Wild West:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/13/making-laws-about-making-babies/fertility-industry-is-a-wild-west
- "CROWDING OUT IN BLOOD DONATION: WAS TITMUSS RIGHT?" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1162/JEEA.2008.6.4.845/abstract
Assessing Titmuss (11970) suggestion that the introduction of monetary incentives can *reduce* blood donation.

Are we cheering for China?

Presenter: Jason Garred
Date: 14/10/11

China is growing. Millions upon millions of people are seeing their economic lives improve. We're wearing some very fashionable clothes and using cool electronic instruments (I just bought a brand new cassette player!) in whose production Chinese people played a major role. So why do so many people in the West appear to worry about the economic threat posed by China rather than unambiguously cheering its economic rise?

Consider, for example, this poll of a sample of Americans (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/hus-an-economic-threat/), along with this sample of one American who might end up being quite influential (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jOAAHOlRtlWaVnvFLWsmofMZW-Xw?docId=CNG.c533ceaa1889d9e0230368db0bb1b454.141).

What worries them (and possibly us)?

Are there negative spillovers? http://www.nber.org/papers/w16778
Are jobs at risk? http://www.nber.org/papers/w14061
Are input markets becoming overly tight? http://politics.salon.com/2006/03/02/peak_copper/

Or is it something more subtle than this? Perhaps a worry that a relative decline in Western political power might lead to Western economic decline for political economy reasons? If so, what are these?

In this week's happy hour, why not come and tell us what you think? It's time to decide whether we're shouting 'Hey hey! Ho ho! China's rise has got to go!' or cheering 'Jia you!'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7uJ_ExULDw

See you there!

Jason

Greece and the Future of the European Experiment

Presenter: Dan Stein
Date: 7/10/11

One again, Greece is teetering on the edge. What will/should happen,
and what does it mean for the Euro and European unity? Do we have any
macroeconomists in the crowd who can actually speak knowledgeably
about these issues? Well, you're just going to have to come and find
out.  Some possible sub-topics:

1. Should Greece default? Should it leave the Euro?
2. If Greece leaves the Euro will the euro collapse?
3. Is it in the best interest of France/Germany/ECB to bail out Greece?
4. Is Italy next?
5. Does it make any sense to have a currency union without a fiscal union?
6. Should inter-country bailouts be approved by voters?

References:

The economist has a nice overview of the greek crisis (a bit old) and
its proposed solution:
http://www.economist.com/node/18866979

Here's a current article about how the sovereign crisis is affecting the banks:
http://www.economist.com/node/21531467

The WSJ weighs in:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576600283985210902.html

As far as I know, Ken Rogoff is the man when it comes to sovereign
debt issues. I'm not sure which of his million papers on the issue is
best, but this is a good survey overview on different approaches to
dealing with sovereign bankruptcy:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/staffp/2002/03/pdf/rogoff.pdf