Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday February 18 2019, @05:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-sick-is-hazardous-to-your-health dept.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/02/13/richard-smith-most-devastating-critique-medicine-since-medical-nemesis-ivan-illich/

Seamus O'Mahony, a gastroenterologist from Cork, has written the most devastating critique of modern medicine since Ivan Illich in Medical Nemesis in 1975. O'Mahony cites Illich and argues that many of his warnings of the medicalisation of life and death; runaway costs; ever declining value; patients reduced to consumers; growing empires of doctors, other health workers, and researchers; and the industrialisation of healthcare have come true.

[...] Unlike Illich, who believed that modern medicine counterproductively created sickness, O'Mahony does see what he calls a golden age of medicine that began after the Second World War with the appearance of antibiotics, vaccines, a swathe of effective drugs, surgical innovations, better anaesthetics, and universal health coverage for most of those in rich countries. It ended in the late 1970s, meaning that O'Mahony, who graduated in 1983 and is still practising, enjoyed little of the golden age. We are now "in the age of unmet and unrealistic expectations, the age of disappointment."

[...] O'Mahony begins his dissection with medical research, "the intellectual motor of the medico-industrial complex." Governments see life sciences as a saviour of economies, and charities urge us to give more to cure every disease. Big Science, which appeared after the golden age, has provided jobs and status but "benefits to patients have been modest and unspectacular." A study of 101 basic science discoveries published in major journals and claiming a clinical application found that 20 years later only one had produced clinical benefit. Big Science is corrupted by "perverse incentives, careerism, and commercialisation."

[...] No disease is better marketed than cancer, and after Richard Nixon's War on Cancer, Barack Obama launched his Cancer Moonshot, which is now renamed Cancer Breakthroughs under Donald Trump. As O'Mahony writes, the language around cancer "is infected with a sort of hubristic oedema." For Big Science cancer is a blessing, leading to huge investments in molecular biology and genetics, but, as cancer researcher David Pye put it: "How can we know so much about the causes and progression of disease, yet do so little to prevent death and incapacity."

[...] "The medical profession," he writes, "has become the front-of-house sales team for the [drug] industry." He argues that "doctors' professional culture obliges them to do something—anything," but he is too easy on doctors, who could push back. Society, he says, displays "childishness" in going along with these expensive treatments: "we must have higher, and better, priorities than feeble, incremental and attritional extension of survival in patients with incurable cancer."

[...] The first thing that I ever had published in a medical journal was a letter to the Lancet in 1974 asking why there had been no response to an article in the journal by Ivan Illich describing in detail how modern medicine was a threat to health. (It would cost me $35.95 today to access the letter, about 50 cents a word from memory.) As a medical student I expected that the leaders of medicine would carefully dissect Illich's argument and with evidence show him to be wrong. But such a response never came. I was naive: I know now that it's easier simply to ignore cogent criticisms. I hope that O'Mahony's book, a Medical Nemesis for 2019, will not be ignored. It deserves to be taken very seriously.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 19 2019, @04:46AM (1 child)

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday February 19 2019, @04:46AM (#803342) Journal

    I refer to this: http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/news%20stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf [ias.org.uk] when comparing drug safety. I don't think it gets into "this drug causes more brain damage than this other drug" but you can probably find info to that effect if you look around.

    At the end of the day, you want to avoid opioids unless you have some severe pain issues. I'm sure some people could benefit from a clean, 100% pure source, but you aren't likely to find that on the illicit market unless you know wtf you are doing.

    It would be interesting to see people with pain issues (not addicts... yet) getting cheap/free supply from supervised injection sites.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:30AM

    by dry (223) on Tuesday February 19 2019, @06:30AM (#803381) Journal

    Personally I don't like opioids but some people sure do, and some seem to be in mostly mental pain.
    They've been doing a small test of giving addicts clean heroin here, stop at clinic, get fix twice a day and it seems fairly successful. Junkies actually working rather then struggling for their next fix, maintaining a home kind of success. Listening to one, it was just so much of a relieve not to be living life wondering how to get the next fix.
    Be nice if the supervised injection sites could supply drugs to go with the needles, but they've been pretty successful about preventing OD deaths. Helps too that the cops will just herd the junkies the the supervised injection site instead of busting them.
    Unluckily there is a good chunk of the population who thinks it is just enabling giving out clean needles or worse, clean drugs.