This week's lesson went by in a blur as I had been sick over the weekend. Being on medication, especially drowsy medication, does nothing for your concentration in class.
From my brief periods of consciousness, there were some points which I noted and felt could have been addressed in class.
Looking at Prof's slides on the different countries' spending on healthcare and its results, I remembered the article I presented on in week 2 (see "What Broke My Father's Heart: A Pacemaker Wrecks a Family's Life" at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magazine/20pacemaker-t.html). The USA has an unfortunate system which penalizes doctors who do not medicate or operate aggressively. Medical practitioners are awarded for implementing new procedures on patients, even in cases where a due diligence examination of the surrounding circumstances would suggest that non-intervention might be better (e.g. an senile elderly woman with dementia should not be fitted with a pacemaker as the device would probably do nothing to improve her quality of life, instead, it would prolong her misery). Another example of this can be found in this article ("Child's Ordeal Shows Danger of Psychosis Drugs for the Young" at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magazine/20pacemaker-t.html), where medication is seen to be the "cheaper" solution to children's attention problems, which can have repercussions on the child's development in the future.
The underlying problem behind most of the world's problems (including these healthcare-related ones) is a lack of responsibility. David Brooks has an interesting article on this point ("The Responsibility Deficit" at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24brooks.html?scp=1&sq=responsibility&st=cse) He argues that the current system has made the consequences of our actions seem remote to those who are making the decision. With this disjoint, people are less likely to take responsibility for their actions or try to find solutions as it does not affect them. Coupled with the perception that those who make wrong decisions do not suffer for their mistakes (e.g. the bankers in the recent financial crisis), you have a recipe for disaster:
(a) problems brought about by a few actors who do not care about their consequences or think that the responsibility can be delegated to someone else
(b) these few actors mainly caring about keeping their comfortable lifestyle
(c) many people suffering from those consequences
(d) resentment from the masses due to the lack of punishment + struggle to survive
(e) groups of masses who have nothing to live for but are filled with resentment
-> possible social upheaval
I tend to agree with this author's view. For people to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences, it has to impact them directly (e.g. during the time of subsistence farming, if you don't do your job well, you have nothing to eat. Thus, people tended to their crops well). However, we are unlikely to return to the pre-Industrial Revolution times, so it is important that we come together and think of how to engage the public and influential actors to ensure that social upheaval does not become a problem of the distant future.
Another issue that was brought up in the presentation on "Biobusiness in brief: the challenges in the clinical trial" was the issue of using people in the developing countries to test products. There are serious ethical issue and evidence of a "double standard" on the value of human life if people in the developed countries are not involved in clinical trials but citizens of the developing countries are. Is human life "cheap" in the developing world because there are so many people there who are starving? Does that mean that their lives are less valuable than ours? As much as the benefits of these clinical trials would probably benefit the whole human race, does it make it acceptable to utilise human beings in such a utilitarian manner. This brings to mind an extreme example: the issue behind the use of research collected by the Nazi doctors during the Holocaust. The Jews and other incarcerated people were treated as sub-human subjects who could be utilised for testing with no issue of their dignity or the value of their life. No doubt such trials yielded results which are of great benefit to our understanding of the human anatomy and its limits, BUT what cost was such research carried out? I do understand that I am risking a slippery slope argument here, but it is worth considering the potential impact and underlying reasons for one's actions before embarking on their actions. (think Big Pharma)
That's all my thoughts for this week. As I wasn't entirely engaged throughout the session, it would not be fair for me to rate it, so I'll sit this one out.
Another point, I do realize that most of my views are influenced by American authors and press due to my favourite online newspaper(i.e. the New York Times). I will try to diversify my sources of information on the world to provide a more diverse and nuanced opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment