The Irish Times view on Donald Trump’s self-medication: a dangerous game

The US president is irresponsible advocating for a drug with dangerous known side-effects

At least he has not followed his own scientific insight to ingest bleach. As manufacturers were quick to point out, the result could have been fatal. But US president Donald Trump’s announcement that he is self-medicating on his favourite, utterly unproven anti-coronavirus drug, hydroxychloroquine, is as worrying.

Apart from the threat to his own health, his irresponsible advocacy for a drug with dangerous known side-effects could kill – some reports suggest already has killed – others and jeopardise important medical trials. Publicity has led to hundreds of volunteers pulling out of trials. Demand and prescriptions have soared – on March 19th, when Trump first championed the drug, 32,000 prescriptions for it were written in the US.

The drug has been used to treat several illnesses, including malaria and lupus. But Trump’s own Covid-19 task force has urged caution. Only anecdotal evidence has found it effective against the virus and the US Food & Drug Administration has warned it can be dangerous to those with underlying heart conditions and can cause liver and kidney damage.

Trump’s decision appears to have been taken with the consent of the White House doctor. A statement from him said simply that “after numerous discussions he and I had regarding the evidence for and against the use of hydroxychloroquine, we concluded the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the relative risks”.

READ MORE

The promotion of this drug, unfortunately, has all the hallmarks of Trump’s management of the pandemic – the determined, unreasoning rejection of advice from scientists and doctors, and an attempt to paint Trump himself as the genius who is singlehandedly rescuing the US from a pandemic which he initially denied. The US is paying a heavy price.

Of course, Trump may not actually be taking hydroxychloroquine. We should be wary of taking any of his assertions at face value; this may be just another act of “diversion” from one of its most skilled practitioners.