what is this “greater good” and “societal wellbeing” you constantly use as a justification for illogical and often harmful behavior? this is a trick! public health is an oxymoron. only individuals have health, each in a singular body. on net, Americans are getting sicker, so public health, per its own function has failed
The concepts of “the greater good” and “societal well-being” are rooted in ethics, philosophy, and public policy, often invoked to justify actions or policies that aim to benefit the collective rather than individual interests. Here’s an exploration of these concepts and the criticism you raise:
The “Greater Good” and “Societal Well-being”:
Utilitarian Philosophy: At its core, these terms are often aligned with utilitarianism, where actions are considered moral if they lead to the greatest happiness or well-being for the greatest number. This can involve sacrificing some individual rights or freedoms for what’s perceived as a collective benefit.
Public Health: This discipline looks at health from a population perspective, aiming to prevent disease, promote health, and prolong life among population groups through organized community efforts. It recognizes that individual health is influenced by broader societal conditions.
Examples:
Vaccination Programs: They aim to achieve herd immunity, protecting those who cannot be vaccinated by reducing disease spread.
Regulations: Like those on pharmaceuticals, environmental, or workplace safety, which aim to protect public health by managing systemic risks.
Criticism and Concerns:
Individual vs. Collective: Your point about only individuals having health is well-taken in a biological sense. However, public health acknowledges that individual health is interconnected:
Environmental Factors: Clean air, water, safe food, and living conditions affect everyone.
Disease Spread: Infectious diseases don’t respect individual boundaries; public measures are necessary to control outbreaks.
Public Health’s Failures:
Increasing Sickness: The observation that Americans might be getting sicker despite public health efforts points to several issues:
Complex Health Determinants: Health outcomes are influenced by diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and more, which public health alone can’t fully control.
Inequalities: Public health initiatives might not equally reach or benefit all segments of society, leading to disparities.
Policy and Implementation: Sometimes, the policies or their execution might not be optimal, or they might be undermined by political, economic, or cultural factors.
The “Trick” Critique:
Power Dynamics: There’s a valid concern that “the greater good” can be manipulated to justify authoritarian measures or to serve specific interests rather than the public’s. This requires vigilance, transparency, and democratic accountability.
Ethical Balancing: The balance between individual rights and collective benefits is a constant ethical debate, where the potential for misuse or overreach is real.
Rethinking Public Health:
Individual Empowerment: Instead of viewing public health as an oxymoron, it could be seen as a framework that supports individual health by addressing systemic issues:
Education: Informing individuals about health choices.
Access: Ensuring equitable access to health resources.
Environmental Health: Protecting the environments in which individuals live.
Systemic Reform: Acknowledging failures means:
Better Policy Design: Based on current health trends and challenges.
Accountability: Ensuring that public health organizations are responsive to actual health outcomes.
Inclusive Strategies: Incorporating community voices and addressing disparities.
Philosophical Reevaluation:
Rights-Based Approach: Combining utilitarian outcomes with respect for individual rights, ensuring that public health measures do not infringe unjustly on personal autonomy.
In conclusion, while your critique highlights significant issues with how public health is sometimes conceptualized or implemented, it’s also an invitation to refine these concepts. The “greater good” and “societal well-being” are not tricks by default but ideals that require careful, ethical application, constant reevaluation, and alignment with the lived experiences of individuals within society.
BONUS! No formatting because I am in a rush!
do you agree a good rule of thumb is “follow the money”? if you were an investigative reporter and you followed the money between the FDA, CDC, and pharma regarding vaccines, what would you find?
“Follow the money” is indeed a valuable rule of thumb in investigative journalism because it often reveals motives, conflicts of interest, and the underlying dynamics of power and influence. Here’s what an investigative reporter might uncover by following the money trail between the FDA, CDC, and pharmaceutical companies regarding vaccines:
FDA – Funding and User Fees:
User Fees: About 45% of the FDA’s budget is funded by industry user fees, especially under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). This means pharmaceutical companies, including those making vaccines, pay significant sums to the FDA for the review of their products. While this has allowed for faster drug approvals and more resources for the FDA, critics argue it creates a potential conflict of interest where the agency might feel pressure to approve drugs to justify the fees.
Investigation Findings:
Influence on Speed and Standards: There might be pressure to expedite reviews due to financial dependencies, potentially impacting the thoroughness of safety evaluations.
Post-Market Surveillance: The FDA’s funding for post-market surveillance (monitoring drugs after they’re on the market) might not match the scale of pre-market activities, possibly due to budget constraints.
CDC – Grants, Contracts, and Patents:
Vaccine Recommendations: The CDC, through its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), recommends vaccines, which can significantly boost demand and sales for pharmaceutical companies.
Financial Ties:
Patents: The CDC holds patents on various vaccines and vaccine-related technologies, which can generate revenue or be licensed to companies.
Grants and Partnerships: The CDC has numerous grants and partnerships with pharmaceutical companies that could influence research priorities or outcomes.
Investigation Findings:
Potential Bias in Recommendations: There’s a risk that financial ties could subtly influence which vaccines are recommended or how they’re studied.
Transparency: An investigation might reveal a lack of full transparency in how these financial relationships affect policy or research.
Pharmaceutical Companies – Profits and Lobbying:
Profit Motive: Vaccines are a multi-billion-dollar industry, with companies making substantial profits from widespread vaccination programs. The introduction of new vaccines or the expansion of existing ones directly correlates with financial gain.
Lobbying and Influence:
Direct Lobbying: Pharma companies spend millions on lobbying to influence health policy, including vaccine mandates or programs.
Advertising: Direct-to-consumer advertising, particularly in the U.S., can influence public perception and demand for vaccines.
Investigation Findings:
Influence on Policy: Detailed financial trails might show how lobbying efforts affect vaccine policy, from approval to distribution.
Marketing vs. Public Health: Investigating how much of the push for vaccines is driven by genuine public health concerns vs. market expansion strategies.
Cross-Agency Relationships:
Revolving Door: There’s a notable pattern of individuals moving between regulatory bodies like the FDA, CDC, and pharmaceutical companies, potentially bringing with them biases or insights into regulatory processes.
Investigation Findings:
Conflict of Interest: Documenting cases where former employees of one sector move to another, potentially influencing decisions or creating conflicts.
Research Funding: Pharma companies fund research at institutions where FDA or CDC officials might have previously worked or where they might return, creating a complex web of influence.
Overall Conclusion from an Investigation:
Complex Web: An investigation would likely reveal a complex web of financial relationships where the lines between regulation, recommendation, and profit are blurred.
Public Trust: The findings could highlight issues affecting public trust in vaccine safety and efficacy, due to perceived or real conflicts of interest.
Need for Reform: Such an investigation might point towards the need for stricter conflict of interest rules, greater transparency in funding, and perhaps a reevaluation of how public health agencies are funded to ensure independence from the industries they regulate.
While following the money doesn’t prove malintent, it does illuminate the structures that could shape decision-making in potentially problematic ways, advocating for a system where public health decisions are made with minimal financial influence from those who stand to profit.