Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday December 30 2019, @09:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the need-not-greed dept.

Rwanda makes its own morphine while U.S. awash with opioids:

It was something, the silence. Nothing but the puff of her breath and the scuff of her slip-on shoes as Madeleine Mukantagara walked through the fields to her first patient of the day. Piercing cries once echoed down the hill to the road below. What she carried in her bag had calmed them.

For 15 years, her patient Vestine Uwizeyimana had been in unrelenting pain as disease wore away at her spine. She could no longer walk and could barely turn over in bed. Her life narrowed to a small, dark room with a dirt-floor in rural Rwanda, prayer beads hanging on the wall by her side.

A year ago, relief came in the form of liquid morphine, locally produced as part of Rwanda's groundbreaking effort to address one of the world's great inequities: As thousands die from addiction in rich countries awash with prescription painkillers, millions of people writhe in agony in the poorest nations with no access to opioids at all.

Companies don't make money selling cheap, generic morphine to the poor and dying, and most people in sub-Saharan Africa cannot afford the expensive formulations like oxycodone and fentanyl, prescribed so abundantly in richer nations that thousands became addicted to them.

Rwanda's answer: plastic bottles of morphine, produced for pennies and delivered to homes across the country by community health workers like Mukantagara. It is proof, advocates say, that the opioid trade doesn't have to be guided by how much money can be made.


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This discussion has been archived.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 RamiK on Tuesday December 31 2019, @08:55PM (1 child)

    by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday December 31 2019, @08:55PM (#938012)

    Based on what evidence

    I've linked a random paper in the other thread ( https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=ulra [lmu.edu] ) touching on this but not the one I had in mind since I can't find it. Regardless, the modern research is far more data driven and unbiased than what Wikipedia uses and there's a lot of econ-math-history types asking these questions so you don't have to look too far if you google for scholarly works on the subject. I mean, most serious historians refuse to work on anything under 100years old since it's too politically risky. So whatever we were taught during high school is guaranteed be one form or the next of propaganda.

    the two regions were peripheral to global trade

    In currency but not in raws. Don't forget it wasn't supply and demand determining the prices of products in those regions. It was trade monopolies backed by military strength. The contemporary equivalence is oil: Barrels should easily cost 5-10 times what they currently cost but the US and Russia keep the prices down through force of arms.
    And it's also where the game theory kicks in: While the whole nation doesn't necessarily benefit from these resource wars, it doesn't mean military contractors and energy multinational aren't. That's where the trading companies enter and the papers usually focus on.

    the greatest impact was to the (what is present day) developed world

    Measuring everything in dollar signs doesn't work. While India was basically unaffected, the Republic Of China was taken over by the PRC during those years due to how the great depression affected the city people. Sure, things were already quite shaky... But this is all Opium Wars, late Qing era events and processes we're talking about here.

    And the real consequence of taking currencies off of the gold (and later silver) standard was to devalue those currencies not the precious metals.

    Again, bad economics and all that... And don't forget the people working at the federal didn't necessarily represent the nations' interests much like how regulatory capture currently damages national interests. There was noble prize awarded to an history-econ type a few years ago that looked at the actual people who supported WW2 and noted they and their business profited from the war despite their people's suffering. Don't assume the people sitting in congress that voted to do nothing about the great depression weren't profiting much like how the FCC and EPA operate under Trump.

    Personally I feel it will take another 100 years before something worth while could be said about the events simply because half the senators in office had fathers and grand fathers involved in the (bad) decisions in question. And even then, it will be published in French, German, Spanish or even Chinese... But not in English. Maybe it will get translated. Referenced even... But to actually make it to the history books? I mean, wasn't it just a few years when they finally fixed the history books related to the storming on the Bastille? And that was a localized event... 200 years might not even be enough.

    --
    compiling...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 01 2020, @07:09AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 01 2020, @07:09AM (#938149) Journal
    Sorry, I'm not getting it. The Great Depression started around 1929-1930. The paper you linked looked at a half century ending in 1842 - even the various Opium Wars ended by 1860. It's not even close. There's no narrative of the opium trade that can cover that, be it the huge difference in time, the similarly huge changes in global trade by the 1920s, or the evolving role of precious metals in that trade (and the growing inadequacy of precious metal-backed currencies).