Corporate hype & medicine

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Fri Jun 22 06:31:08 PDT 2001


At 07:47 AM 6/22/01 +0100, daniel d wrote:
>
>at least two of the diseases mentioned above can only be considered to have
>been "controlled" by western medicine if one _is_ a middle class American, or
>equivalent. Tuberculosis and malaria have been controlled, where they have
>been controlled at all, by public health initiatives largely unrelated to the
>medical profession (starting with the engineer who stopped the Clerkenwell
>cholera epidemic in its tracks by removing the handle from a pump, in the
face
>of the scorn of the medical profession). The main contribution of "western
>medicine" to the control of epidemic disease has been to create the
>evolutionary conditions for the development of better drug resistance among
>tuberculosis and malaria baccilli.

Look, every occupational group has both genuine experts and pompous asses wrapping themselves in the aura of conventional respectablity. The medical profession is no different. Therefore arguments against that profession based on the claim that some doctors are a bunch of pompous asses are hogwash, unless it can be demonstrated that doctors are more likely to be pompous assess than other professionals.

As far as public health is concerned - yes indeed it was responsible for controlling many diseases that used to decimate populations, but what makes you think it is NOT a part of western medical science? Did it not grew out of empirical research on causes of the said diseases on which "western" medicine is based?

It is one thing to critize a certain approach to medicine (popular mainly in the US) that favors costly and oft exotic treatment of illness or symptoms over inexpensive prevention and healthy diet. But it is a quite different thing to dismiss "western medicine" altogether in favor of witchcraft and quackery (often even more expensive than standard medical treatment), as it is becoming popular in newage circles. What may be fashionable for aging hippies in the US or the UK, may be quite offensive for people living in countries whose one-fourth of the population is infected with AIDS, not to mention malaria, and other treatable diseases.

PS. Whatever other faults of Soviet-style "state socialism" (as well as Western-European "welfare states") - they had at least one undeniable benefit - introduction of "western" medicine to peoples who could not previously afford it.

wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list