Dealing with cancer, so many families have been affected by it, so many premature deaths of dearly loved ones, premature no matter what age, that there is enough money and passion flying around for corruption to seep in. It should be quite the reverse, that there ought to be so much money and passion flying around that focussed science is all that comes of it. The corruption here works against that focussed science in the obvious ways of misleading the healing community. But the uncovering of the corruption negates the focussed science. We can see that a total of 2300 hours in this case went into good scientists and statisticians taking up the cause of uncovering the bogus studies. Those 2300 hours by those three good people ought to have been focussed on treating the disease instead of fighting the corruption.
The negative effect is worse than I stated. There is also the case that someone who did not lie on their resume, and should have gotten the position at Duke but didn't, and would have used his or her position to further the cause of science, never had a chance to. We don't get to do that time over. It is lost opportunity.
That's a problem with corruption and cheaters in any field, including athletes who take steroids and corrupt politicians, or any job anywhere. They are taking up the spots that people who are not corrupt, who would not cheat, wanted but could not get because of the cheaters. These people who would have done wonderfully move onto other things instead of contributing to society or to the field the way they wanted to and the way we would have appreciated. And let's say that a person who wanted the positions at Duke simply moved onto another university and made his or her contribution. Well, that person bumped someone else. No matter how you look at it, an important opportunity at Duke was lost. That posiition, or those positions at the university, should have been filled with a good scientist furthering the field with passion, instead of damaging it with corruption.
A lot of corruption in medical care comes from the fact that it is tied up for-profit corporations. That means that it is possible for someone in corporate management to view your life-threatening illness as a marketing opportunity.
One of worst examples of this is when the pharmaceutical companies essentially bought Congress, their lobbyists getting Congress passing a law saying it was okay for pharm companies to advertise their drugs to the general public on TV, radio, and in non-specialist print magazines. The end result has been huge profits for the drug companies—who, trust me, the recession has not affected—and increased headaches for doctors and patients. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard of semi-ignorant patients going to their doctors and demanding a drug they saw advertised, figuring it would solve all their problems—when in many cases the drug would have killed them had the doctor actually prescribed it.
Where there's a huge profit to be made, why should anyone be surprised that corruption might seep in? When medicine is managed as a for-profit business, why should anyone be surprised at inequal access to necessary medical care, or surprised that medical care overall has suffered? Duh!
Dealing with cancer, so many families have been affected by it, so many premature deaths of dearly loved ones, premature no matter what age, that there is enough money and passion flying around for corruption to seep in. It should be quite the reverse, that there ought to be so much money and passion flying around that focussed science is all that comes of it. The corruption here works against that focussed science in the obvious ways of misleading the healing community. But the uncovering of the corruption negates the focussed science. We can see that a total of 2300 hours in this case went into good scientists and statisticians taking up the cause of uncovering the bogus studies. Those 2300 hours by those three good people ought to have been focussed on treating the disease instead of fighting the corruption.
ReplyDeleteThe negative effect is worse than I stated. There is also the case that someone who did not lie on their resume, and should have gotten the position at Duke but didn't, and would have used his or her position to further the cause of science, never had a chance to. We don't get to do that time over. It is lost opportunity.
ReplyDeleteThat's a problem with corruption and cheaters in any field, including athletes who take steroids and corrupt politicians, or any job anywhere. They are taking up the spots that people who are not corrupt, who would not cheat, wanted but could not get because of the cheaters. These people who would have done wonderfully move onto other things instead of contributing to society or to the field the way they wanted to and the way we would have appreciated. And let's say that a person who wanted the positions at Duke simply moved onto another university and made his or her contribution. Well, that person bumped someone else. No matter how you look at it, an important opportunity at Duke was lost. That posiition, or those positions at the university, should have been filled with a good scientist furthering the field with passion, instead of damaging it with corruption.
A lot of corruption in medical care comes from the fact that it is tied up for-profit corporations. That means that it is possible for someone in corporate management to view your life-threatening illness as a marketing opportunity.
ReplyDeleteOne of worst examples of this is when the pharmaceutical companies essentially bought Congress, their lobbyists getting Congress passing a law saying it was okay for pharm companies to advertise their drugs to the general public on TV, radio, and in non-specialist print magazines. The end result has been huge profits for the drug companies—who, trust me, the recession has not affected—and increased headaches for doctors and patients. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard of semi-ignorant patients going to their doctors and demanding a drug they saw advertised, figuring it would solve all their problems—when in many cases the drug would have killed them had the doctor actually prescribed it.
Where there's a huge profit to be made, why should anyone be surprised that corruption might seep in? When medicine is managed as a for-profit business, why should anyone be surprised at inequal access to necessary medical care, or surprised that medical care overall has suffered? Duh!