The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Health inequality > Comments

Health inequality : Comments

By Peter Curson, published 22/12/2008

Despite some important victories in healthcare the global community has failed to deliver on promises made 30 years ago

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
The book 'Those who suffer much, know much' is an excellent example of health inequality on our doorstep.

The book features 29 case studies attributing a low-cost, controversial treatment, low dose naltrexone (LDN),
with improved health.

Though effective, the majority of those who might benefit will not hear of this treatment option ... even after all else has failed ... even though these case studies infer significant 'cost-benefits' to patients and the nation.

Content:
20 Multiple Sclerosis case studies
2 HIV/AIDS case studies
1 Hepatitis B case study
1 Primary Lateral Sclerosis case study
2 Cancer case studies
2 Crohn's Disease case studies
1 Multiple Benefits case study

The bigger picture is discussed via an explanatory article, and interviews with professionals familiar with LDN - Dr. David Gluck, Dr. Tom Gilhooly, Dr. Jaquelyn McCandless, and Dr. Skip Lenz, Pharmacist.

If of interest, the book is available on casehealth.com.au free of charge, and can be freely shared forward - as a community service.

In support, a Pub Med extract of Mira Gironi's LDN/PPMS trial; 'A pilot trial of low-dose naltrexone in primary progressive multiple sclerosis'; can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18728058
Posted by Cris Kerr, Monday, 22 December 2008 11:04:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author assumes but does not say why governments should eliminate “inequality” in health outcomes.

If health outcomes were equal, there would be no provision of health services, because no-one could benefit from either buying or selling them. The basic idea is flawed. It is the existence of the inequality that motivates the provision of health services. The question is how best to supply them.

The article assumes but does not say why governments have and should have total responsibility for health outcomes. Health is necessary and desirable, but so are lots of things. So are food and sex. Should government have responsibility for forced re-distributions to make sure “our” sex “system” is not “under-resourced”? Surely all the same arguments apply: the mandate of inequality; a “return to [government-declared] values and principles” (Primary Sexual Care? – just the basics); the need to be inclusive; to view other people’s labour as “resources” to be re-distributed; to avoid discrimination; to bring “broad expectations” into line with “actual performance”. The same arguments apply to food. The assumptions are wrong.

Just because inequality exists, doesn’t mean governments are justified in trying to remove it by setting up central planning bureaucracies based on compulsion and command. These have been shown, over and over again, to be bad in practice and in principle. The author needs to accept or refute these arguments, not ignore them.

Obviously if you don’t count the cost of using tax, any governmental action will seem beneficial compared to the alternatives.

The article assumes but does not say why the resources confiscated to pay for these bureaucracies and their grand plans might not have been better spent directly either on health or any other human need
Posted by Diocletian, Monday, 22 December 2008 11:46:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont.)

Nor does it consider the possibility that governments in general might be making the problem worse not better.

For example governments massively divert scarce resources from more urgent needs, like preventing large numbers of child deaths from diarrhoea, into less urgent needs, like government-funded Professorships of Population and Security.

Governments cause the death of large numbers of people by banning life-saving medicines - all for “consumer protection” of course. Governments aid corrupt third-world governments to confiscate and consume the capital of their impoverished people. Governments inflation-tax the poorest members of society, to fund the vested interests of trade unions of health bureaucrats. Governments protect the medical guilds which restrict provision of health services. Governments fund the utter waste and corruption of the United Nations. The list goes on and on.

Where ye olde pirate maps labelled parts unknown with “Here be Monsterrs”, the author wrongly assumes that the parts of government unexplored by his theory can safely be labelled “Here be Angels”
Posted by Diocletian, Monday, 22 December 2008 11:46:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Cushings article on healh inequality calls for a return to the values, principles and approaches of Primary Health Care. This is so especially in deation to tooth decay,still the most common of diseases even with the great benefit of fluoridation because much of the food like sugar and starch left on teeth after meals and snacks results in acid demineralisation of tooth eventually after thousands of meals can result in cavities, 1 by age 6, another by 12 and 4 more by age 21.

Over 11 million of Australians suffer new decay each year, 38% have untreated decay.
“Approximately $3.7 billion was spent on dental services in the year 2001-02” Supertooth says 1.7% for prevention is not enough and more, better primary health tooth care and education is needed.
Posted by Supertooth, Monday, 22 December 2008 2:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is inequality as such a problem?

Surely what should concern us most is an adequate minimum level of health care available to an individual, rather than that all individuals have "equal" health care.

||
Posted by parallel, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 11:24:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rural and indigenous communities experience health inequality from poor treatment facilities, and adequate preventive health promotion. Also in the case of Tooth Decay, no fluoridation.

Decay is the most common disease even with fluoridation yet easy to prevent and is the result of many small acid demineralisation episodes, from thousands of meals and snacks left on teeth that exceed saliva remineralisation.

Chewing noticeably forces food between teeth, but over 80% of cavities occur inside deep pits and fissures on chewing surfaces where saliva and mineralising agents like fluoride toothpaste have no access to remineralise demineralised tooth.

You can get more information and help get government support for Supertooth and Good food friends project to prevent tooth decay by registering for more info on www.supertoothmdk.org
Posted by Supertooth, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 2:34:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy