The ultimate debate on democracy, liberty and freedom. (2 Viewers)

[Iron]

If there can be a society conducive to producing supermen (suggestions?) I wouldnt want to live there, no.
But why should my happiness be any grounding criteria in the search for truth? If I was looking for what gives happiness, rather than what gives knowledge, Fishwick is like a 5min drive.

 

[KFunk]

Similarly, if the Doctors in your example are convinced that they are no more superior than anyone in society (when they're pretty high up the ladder), then it is unlikely that they will make great doctors. Utilitarian ideals will likely prove insufficient. Their work must be handsomly rewarded, they must be recognised as great, better, powerful. Without this, nothing will get done.

Haha, there are enough big egos floating around in medicine (speaking both from experience and from word of mouth) that I doubt the profession will fall into a slump of self-depreciation any time soon. On handsome rewards - some doctors make far too much money (in my opinion), e.g. the financial firm Medfin estimated the average salary of a 45 y/o Cardiologist (private, of course) at about 450k ... and this is after expenses, though before tax. On the flip side, some clinical academics probably deserve to do better than they do.

 

[Iron]

Exactly, it is the same in law. Success and ego go hand in hand, just not everyone is honest about it (which may be the best way to more success). Point is that equality is a farce

 

[Enteebee]

Well in reality I think 'the strong' have decided for whatever reasons to yeild their power to 'the weak' in order for them to reap any benefits, so I don't see it as too big of a problem?

 

[Iron]

I think youre right. The need for the strong to be recognised still exists, but it has gone underground after that whole totalitarianism thing. In terms of Plato's three parts of the soul (crudely: reason, material desire, desire to be recognised), the desire to be recognised as politically powerful cant work in a modern society of wmds. If we swing back that way, we wont know it for long. All dead!
But it's still very much alive in capitalist entrepreneurship, to a limited extent in democratic politics (ie foreign policy) and, of flirking course, sport.

 

[Slidey]

I love you too KFunk, but problem I have with this is that it assumes equality of individuals.

Even if this is not true, to offically assume anything else leads to eugenics, racial segregation, slavery, and war.

We have learnt from the past that the equality of individuals is required as a fundamental assumption for social and political stability, and thus economic stability in turn.

Similar to how a state performs better socially and economically when it maintains its secularity, regardless of private religious adherence; a state should maintain and thoroughly pursue a policy of human equality - even in the face of the private misgivings its citizens and leaders may have about this idea.

That is: individuals are free to feel superior to others, but they must ensure their opinion of others doesn't lead to violation of laws and human rights. As such, I find the notion of human equality fully compatible with your argument of the human need for improvement and progress.

 

[Iron]

Yes I know, but what your proposing is that we delude ourselves. Im happy with this, but lets at least recognise that we're doing it.
People tend to become very bored of social and political stability anyway. Even when we know better, we pick fights. The lawyer, for instance, can assure himself that he's the modern day cowboy, gun slinger, untambale black knight, but he must know at the back of his mind that his heros would probably find him to be pretty pathetic. There's no where near the same risk, reward, bravery etc etc. No where near the same opportunities for one to prove himself as superior in modern society. I think that this is unhealthy and can lead to serious mental health issues which clog our healthcare system and weaken the resolve of our allies

 

[Slidey]

Certainly. I, too, have a romantic notion and desire for adventure. But I'll still chose this system any day for the quality of life it affords (even for the mentally ill, whose prevalance may have simply increased as a function of diagnosis knowledge increase, not real growth). Is diagnosed & controlled mental illness worse than lower income, lower education levels, increased disease, living half as long, rotting teeth, dying from simple flu, and the constant looming threat of death? (I'm thinking Africa or the West in the Middle Ages)

Also, in response to:

Their work must be handsomly rewarded, they must be recognised as great, better, powerful. Without this, nothing will get done.

Supply and demand (as in free and mixed markets) solves this problem without recourse to philosophy.

 

[Iron]

I can'nee disagree with you ol' mun.
But I feel that youre selling the desire to be recognised all to cheaply. I mean, do you think that this almost animal instinct can be permanantly suppressed, weeded out of the human psyche?

 

[Slidey]

I mean, do you think that this almost animal instinct can be permanantly suppressed, weeded out of the human psyche?

I hope not.

 

[flappinghippo]

^ This is one of the reasonable arguments in favour of certain forms of regulation in my opinion. The average consumer can't be expected to have advanced knowledge of pharmacology or of the statistical interpretation of clinical trials. It thus makes sense to put in place bodies, like the TGA, which monitor the efficacy of available products. Naturally we want to iron out failings in this process and keep it as efficient as possible. Sometimes drugs do get held up for good reason though - some drugs are reported as being efficacious in the popular press even though such claims are based on studies with poor methodology. Regulatory bodies may be rightfully skeptical in such cases. On the other hand, I'm sure that the process also proves overly slow/cumbersome/conservative at times.

Suppose a company finally manufactures a cure for cancer today, having spent billions of dollars, years of effort in research and development.

The drug, instead of being freely traded from day one, is instead directed through the paper maze of the Food and Drug Administration, whereupon further trials are conducted to test for potential hazards it may pose to people's health. The director of the FDA, for fear of being the one responsible for releasing an unsafe drug, green-lights the standard procedure for gauging its safety. This process usually takes several years to complete.

There are two outcomes for this; either
- The drug is bad. It has severe side effects, such as death, in which case we can all thank the FDA for protecting society.
- The drug is good. In which case countless people suffering from cancer have been denied access to something that could have saved their lives – ironically "for their own good".

Surely, if one assumes that a pharmaceutical company is in it for the money, and that a dangerous drug does not sell well, then it's in the company's interest to make sure that part of the hundreds of billions of dollars in funding goes toward making the drug as safe as possible. You know, to make it marketable.

Don't you think the government's role in this area would be more effective in making sure companies are held responsible for mistakes when they occur, making the rogue manufacturers pay for the damage they cause, instead of impeding the supply of medicine to where it's needed? While it's true the average consumer can't be expected to make an educated interpretation of clinical studies, can't he rest knowing that the company that makes his medication relies on his health improving?

 

[Enteebee]

Your entire rant seems to miss how many drugs get sent to a body such as the FDA and end up being found unfit for sale... These are drugs that would have been out there, killing people, of course later we can sue the company for their negligence but who's to say they won't gamble? Companies come and go like flies, making gambles on how much money they can potentially make.

 

[KFunk]

Surely, if one assumes that a pharmaceutical company is in it for the money, and that a dangerous drug does not sell well, then it's in the company's interest to make sure that part of the hundreds of billions of dollars in funding goes toward making the drug as safe as possible. You know, to make it marketable.

Don't you think the government's role in this area would be more effective in making sure companies are held responsible for mistakes when they occur, making the rogue manufacturers pay for the damage they cause, instead of impeding the supply of medicine to where it's needed? While it's true the average consumer can't be expected to make an educated interpretation of clinical studies, can't he rest knowing that the company that makes his medication relies on his health improving?

But if good studies have been performed and are available for scrutiny then administrative bodies like the TGA (the FDA is in the US) should be able to clear a drug for use. Also, side effects are usually more insidious (and harder to pick up) than 'death'; things like nausea, gastric ulcers, mild blood clotting, birth defects (if taken during pregnancy) and so forth. Of course a drug company can't get away with selling a product which simply causes rapid death. They can, however, get away with selling a product which they claim is better than other competing products (when in fact it is slightly worse) and where the side effects haven't been properly studied or are not directly apparent. To site just one trick: drug companies commonly exclude people with ailments apart from the one being targeted from their trials in order to generate results which are stronger than you would expect in a normal population.

You're well within your rights to advocate a 'release it onto the market and, if it kills/harms people, then recall it' approach (though are you certain that it would lead to improved outcomes?). I geuss I just don't have enough faith in the pharmaceutical industry's ability to self-regulate yet.

 

[flappinghippo]

But if good studies have been performed and are available for scrutiny then administrative bodies like the TGA (the FDA is in the US) should be able to clear a drug for use. Also, side effects are usually more insidious (and harder to pick up) than 'death'; things like nausea, gastric ulcers, mild blood clotting, birth defects (if taken during pregnancy) and so forth. Of course a drug company can't get away with selling a product which simply causes rapid death. They can, however, get away with selling a product which they claim is better than other competing products (when in fact it is slightly worse) and where the side effects haven't been properly studied or are not directly apparent. To site just one trick: drug companies commonly exclude people with ailments apart from the one being targeted from their trials in order to generate results which are stronger than you would expect in a normal population.

Sure, these things happen from time to time. However, I'm of the opinion that companies can only lie to people for so long, that they ultimately get what's coming for them if they release an inferior drug. I mean, evidently you yourself are aware of the fact that some big pharmaceuticals 'cheat' – skew data in their favour for example – to make a quick buck. Well, next time you're at the chemist you'd choose the competing brand, the one that didn't lie about their potential side effects, etc. It's never in the interest of the company to create enemies amongst consumers, especially in the medical industry, because the legal and financial backlash will always in the long term haemorrhage the business (James Hardie, Love Canal, Thalidomide). Those that are in it for the long haul put a value on honesty, and maintaining a clean record.

The whole point of branding is to familiarise the consumer with the company, to establish trust between the two entities. This costs a whole fuckload of money to do, and years upon years to develop. It takes a very small mistake in some obscure place to totally shatter the company image and thus their competitiveness. A humongous company can be bit in the ass by a faulty test conducted by some low-level researcher years ago, and be made to pay millions in compensation. In an industry plagued by scandals, the most disciplined players earn the biggest rewards.

I guess my biggest issue is with the government agencies' process of scrutiny. There is no push to make it faster, or more efficient – there's no reward for the director to revamp the structure for the better, at least not one large enough to outweigh a potential accident further on, one that would hold him responsible. No, the director finds he can let things run like they usually do, because as long as he does his job, it's not his fault the people that could've used a particular medicine die as a result.