There are three ways of approaching less than optimal health: prevention, treatment and cure. All have their strong and weak points; all are political hot cakes at the moment.
I think most individuals and societies would agree that the best solution is to stay in good health. It is also a solution that is not always possible. It is, however, the approach that is responsible for the dramatic drop in childhood death in developed countries.
Prevention measures are generally lumped as public health. Clean drinking water, proper sewage disposal, nutritious food, clean air and immunizations all fall into this category. So do measures intended to reduce accidental injury or death (such as seat belts) and those encouraging a healthier life style. Prevention would also include such highly controversial measures as not passing on genes known to have a deleterious effect on health.
In general prevention measures are good for the population, but affect individual choice. They may also affect the bottom line of corporations with a great influence on public policy, such as the food industry.
By treatment I refer to ongoing treatment — the pill (or shot) for everything or treatments such as dialysis which must be repeated regularly for the life of the patient. Certainly it is better to have a treatment than not! I am alive today thanks to insulin. But treatment is generally expensive and is often lifelong. Further, treatment of this sort almost always has undesirable side effects. In my case, insulin can produce hypoglycemia which can kill. It should be noted that some “cures,” such as organ transplants, may then produce a condition in which lifelong treatment (anti-rejection drugs) is needed.
A cure implies a return to normal health. In some cases (such as the common cold) a cure is mainly a matter of time, with supporting treatment to prevent secondary infections or ease symptoms. Some cancers are curable with surgery, especially if caught early. Broken bones or other traumatic injuries can often be cured, especially in the young. A number of conditions, however, have no cure. Research on cures is ongoing, but the profit from a true cure is usually not as great as from lifelong treatment. Given that most health research today is profit-driven, research on cures tends to take a back seat to research on treatments.
I’ll probably return to this in the future, looking at one of the three approaches at a time. For right now, how would you order the importance of the three approaches?
This is a very good summary of what we need to do. There really isn’t one answer to your question, but I’ll throw this out:
In general, I think prevention must take the driver’s seat, but true prevention would require a paradigm change in our society. An unbelievable number of people are amazingly ignorant about their bodies. In spite of all the information available, too many people do not understand, or do not care, about nutrition, exercise, and good health habits. For instance, how many people never touch a whole grain or eat only one vegetable a day, which was probably corn, with dinner. How many people drink sodas every day? How many babies are fed infant formula instead of breast milk?
When something as basic as this is ignored by (how many? 90% of the population?), it’s obvious we have a serious problem with prevention. Unless this very simple solution is applied by most of the population, our health care costs will continue to skyrocket. Your point about profits hits here, too. It is far too profitable, to far too many industries, for Americans to continue consuming refined grains and sugar. The food companies profit of course, but health companies also profit, because life-long treatment is needed to deal with the repercussions.
This is a subject I feel very, very strongly about, and I’m always in danger of ranting. And while I would like to see a national health care system in this country, I am highly distrustful that any such program will implement these simple, commonsense solutions.