An Introduction to Health Commons
Graham Steel
Monday, 26 May 2008 11:50 UTC
Yesterday, I was alerted to An Introduction to Health Commons by John Wilbanks
I placed a link to this on another Forum and received the following comments from individuals in Canada and the US respectively as below.
Please consider watching the presentation, reading the associated text and commenting here.
Great idea Graham but in order to succeed I think that it also requires that the drug companies themselves be under public ownership.
Modern medicine has been extraordinarily successful in only two main areas— control of infectious disease, and trauma care. Both were government-funded initiatives. Control of infectious disease was regarded as warranting government intervention because epidemics cause problems for governments. Trauma care was revolutionized during the Vietnam war because the body count was becoming a political liability for the US government. (In earlier US wars, it was crippled soldiers and not dead ones who represented the greatest political liability.)
Neurodegenerative and cardiovascular disease and cancer do not yet threaten the US government— in fact, the huge amounts of money spent on not solving those problems provides a profit stream so fat that it fuels political parties. In other words, politicians are very happy with the medical establishment just the way it is. Until something happens to make them unhappy with the way things are, to the point where they fear losing their jobs, the government will not do any major reform of the system. ……..The impending collapse of Social Security may eventually provide that fear, we’ll see. …….If public but nongovernmental healthcare reforms were to take enough money out of “the system” to where it no longer owns government through right of purchase, that eventuality would cut politicians some flexibility as well.
-
Replies
-
Thanks Graham for the link and the comments.
I still think the problem is a knowledge problem. We need to know a lot more, and we need to use what we know better. I don’t think that public ownership does the trick – only lowering the cost so that disease-driven foundations can compete will do the trick, I think…at least until we move from a forensic style of biology to an engineering style of biology. Our grandkids are going to look back at today’s drugs with the horror we think of bleeding and leeches and luminiferous aether…and the drug companies of their time will look much more like startup software companies.
But to get from here to there is a long way. I believe in “free beer” for medicines of today – the best way is for the governments to step up and purchase drugs for those who can’t afford them, and use that purchasing power to get good prices established for the rest of us. I believe in A2K as a first principle to solve the rest of the problems – open licensing on the literature and databases. And I believe in making the ability to research a democratic ability, so that more people not in the traditional science guild can test hypotheses, without the imperative to privatize that characterizes the modern publicly funded lab.
I don’t believe in mass publicization of drug companies or discovery, or in the dismantling of the patent system, or patent left. I don’t think those things help us close the knowledge gap – they’re discussing how to bandage the wound, not how to keep from getting cut again and again.
As in all things though, YMMV.
jtw
-