Medical Economics
We have received the following letter from a reader in criticism of the article in our December issue.
London, N.16.
1947.
To the Editor,
The Socialist Standard.
Sir,
While visiting friends yesterday evening an ardent member of the S.P.G.B. arrived and within a few minutes polities cropped up. I expressed the view that I had Socialist leanings and on learning I was a medical man I was given a December copy of your journal, to read p.123, “Medical Economics,” which I did in the train while returning from my week-end leave (I am at present in the R.A.M.C.).
The article astounded me in its. many misinterpretations, but having had some psychiatric experience I realised that the author of this article was completely unable to give a rational view on his subject, but this nevertheless does not detract from the need to answer his amazing allegations.
I hope I may be permitted to do so in your journal.
A great amount of time is spent in research for prophylactic medicine and every medical journal contains articles on prophylactics. Your correspondent writes hospitals must have millions of sick people or go out of business—yet the nursing shortage is so great that there are long waiting lists which hospitals are trying to reduce as urgently as possible.
“In this country there are more doctors and hospitals per head of population than in most countries, and strange to say, there is also a vast and increasing number of sick or ailing people.” Shall we say more people in this country are able to attend a doctor for illness in the country as doctors are relatively higher, and therefore the expectancy of life is higher and illnesses cured earlier in this country.
Then Mr. Jarvis writes certain complaints increase yearly. Cancer is increasing for two reasons; one, because people are living longer and this is a disease of the more elderly, and second, diagnosis has improved the number of cases diagnosed as such. Diabetes has increased because people are now kept alive and well with this illness when previously they all soon died—the increase is not a real increase year by year but only apparent by the longer life given.
Mr. Jarvis does not understand medical statistics, which is vastly different from normal statistics.
Concerning his remarks re surgeons and fees. Almost every surgeon works voluntary and free in hospitals for the poor.
I agree that many drug manufacturers are sucking the public, and many medical journals have attempted reforms but the advertising revenue to newspapers is so great that they can attain little publicity. Of course many manufacturers are honest and reputable in business.
“Rheumatism” covers many known medical diseases, and the disease Lord Trent suffered from was entirely different from the more common “rheumatic” diseases which can be alleviated by medical treatment. I, however, know nothing about this case other than that which Mr. Jarvis writes.
Concerning advertising and the B.B.C., Penicillin, Streptomycin and Pheno-Barbitone are none of them trade names of any firm; they are all official names of the drugs, the nomenclature being under the control of non-profit associations.
Concerning vaccination and inoculation. Smallpox has almost vanished from civilised countries (this is prophylactic), diphtheria is diminishing year by year. “The enormous amount of injections done during the war on soldiers . . .” let Mr. Jarvis compare the figures for medical illness in both wars and especially the Boer War to see the benefit. I heard General Slim say that the medical services in Burma won the battle—early in the Burma war illness ran into over six figures per year, yet later with more troops the figure was I reduced by over 90 per cent.
I have written about the “apparent” increase in cancer. The Cancer Laws were passed to prevent the public being hoaxed and given hope maliciously by quacks. Similar laws apply to diabetes, V.D., and a few other diseases.
I am not old enough to know the cause of death of Valentino*.
Does the writer honestly consider doctors enjoy the illness of the workers. He has very poor faith in humanity.
Latin and Greek nomenclature increases the international element in medicine and also has other medical uses. Many of the younger generation write prescriptions in English—we are not hiding behind a cloak of mystery.
Blood transfusions save lives in civilian hospitals daily in maternity cases, pre- and post operative for large operations, in cases of haemorrhage and long debilitating illnesses.
Before Mr. Jarvis writes further articles on the medical profession I suggest he consult a doctor to get his facts correct; I will oblige him at any future date.
One last point. I hope Mr. Jarvis is not so embittered against our profession that he and his family refrain from attending a doctor in illness.
Yours faithfully,
A. Folkson, M.B., B.S.
(Lieut., R.A.M.C.)
The Socialist Standard ois the Party’s propagandist organ in the columns of which we endeavour to give as full a statement of our socialist principles as possible. As far as we can we avoid controversial issues upon which the Party is not committed to any particular point of view. We do so because issues of this kind might lead to lengthy correspondence and the using up of valuable space upon matters that are outside the object for which the Party was formed. But in spite of our intentions, statements on controversial issues of the kind to which we refer may on rare occasions creep in. In the December number of the S.S., in an article entitled “Medical Economics,” there were some statements of a controversial nature upon which agreement or disagreement was immaterial as far as our socialist attitude is concerned. As these particular statements have been criticised by a reader we are printing his letter in order that the opposite point of view may have equal expression, but, for the reasons stated above, we do not propose publishing a detailed reply to it. As far as we are concerned both attitudes will have been stated and, although we may not agree with some of our reader’s contentions, there we leave the matter.
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE