|
|||
|
Back to the Forum Archives I saw my primary care physician (PCP) yesterday. Actually, he's not a PCP, he's a real nice person. This acronym (PCP) for doctor was an invention of the health care industry. I think it was a deliberate attempt to depersonalize the relationship between the doctor and the patient. If they could do that, they could drive their profit wedge into the space and make the doctor their tody in the profit game. In my case, it did not work. My doctor is a very nice gentleman who cares about people. He continues to do what he thinks is best for my continued health. Yesterday was my regular three month visit. It was also my wife's three month visit. It works out well. We go together and the doctor sees us together. We have no secrets. Is that scary or what? One nice thing is, in the case of old timer's forgetfulness disease, one of us will likely remember for the other. So we talk with the doctor about all of the things we need to discuss. One of the things we always discuss is the drugs I take. Mrs. Gaffer does not take any drugs at all. I find that amazing. I take five prescription drugs plus a B complex vitamin which is so potent it also requires a prescription. Of the five, there is one I only take occasionally for unusual pain. It is a generic substitute for Darvocet. I have unusual pain whenever I do something careless, like try to move an anvil. I take about one Darvocet per week. The other drugs I take every day. Why am I telling you all of this? I'm about to make a point. I thought I was taking an inordinate number of drugs. I suspect most people would agree with me, but they would be as wrong as I was. Our doctor explained that we were unusual as regards drugs because we take so few. It turns out, most of the people in our age range take from six to twelve drugs every single day. That was areal blast of enlightenment for me. It seems the drug companies are getting fat off of old folks. That by itself is not a revelation for anyone who watches the news. The drug war being fought between the politicians on one side and the drug companies on the other is old news. Even the importation of drugs from Canada is becoming common. Still, the drug companies are on the winning side. The politicians have not managed to show a united front yet. With all of this, I began to wonder how much of this is really necessary. The question becomes, do we really need all of those drugs? Set aside for the moment the fight against AIDS. That is a special case. We can hope science will eventually deliver a real cure, but for now the drug cocktails are the only haven for those afflicted. The question I ask is for the rest of us. With drugs, how much is enough and what would happen if we didn't have so many drugs? America is unique in that we seem to be able to afford massive indulgences on all fronts. Other countries are not so fortunate. The so called third world countries are very unfortunate. They have almost no access to any indulgences including the advanced drugs. They make do with home remedies. The question is, how does this affect their quality of life and longevity? For sure, those folks die a lot younger than Americans, but what is the cause of that? Is it really lack of drugs or are there other more direct factors? Perhaps it is time to do a comparative study of the benefits of drugs. I don't know what country we would choose, but I suspect we would find that more drugs would not change things as much as decent sanitation and decent food. I think, if we look at American history we would find a similar thing. Lack of sanitation has always been the big killer, not lack of medicine. As I said, I think we would find lack of food and sanitation to be the combined major killers in the third world. Lack of drugs would come in last as a causative factor if at all. The effect would probably be unmeasurable. The only area where we could show a direct influence of medicine would be in the cases where the need for drugs was a result rather than a cause of the condition. So, again, how much is enough? Perhaps with us it's like food. We really consume way more than we need, more than is healthy in fact. Perhaps we have been conned by the big drug companies. We are probably demanding and taking drugs we don't really need. What is all of this TV advertising about? Do we really need most of that? In many cases, I believe the drug profiteers are deliberately creating an artificial need. Then the patients go in an demand a drug they don't need and too many busy doctors will prescribe it. I'm sure this is true with erection drugs. A healthy life style would probably solve the problem more efficiently. The thing is, with food the result of excess is quickly evident. It shows up on our bellies and buns. This is not the case with excesses in drugs. These may only show up at the autopsy if one is performed. But, let's not even consider drug toxicity. Let's just consider cost. The drug industry is one of the wealthiest and most powerful industries in America with a massive Washington lobby to prove it. The money which creates their wealth is chiseled from every segment of our population with a particular burden on older people. But, do we need all or the drugs? Is it partly our faults? Here are some facts from my personal observation. I need pain control medicine when I do things I should not do. I know of several people who take blood pressure medication. These people also drink alcohol. If they did not, they would not need the medication. I know other people who take medication to control cholesterol. Every one of them eats in excess things that cause high cholesterol. And so on. I doubt that anything can be done about this. A united congress
could probably force down the cost of drugs for a while. There
is no way congress can affect over indulgence and dependence
on drugs. Only individuals can do that. We need only look around
at the big bellies and butts to know it won't happen. If we cannot
control ourselves when the evidence is obvious, how much less
will we when the evidence is hidden?
|