If climate change were deemed to be caused by the use of pharmaceuticals, not by combustion of fossil fuels, would our leaders seek to ban prescription drugs by 2050?
Our Take, With Doug Sheridan
Our Take, With Doug Sheridan
We wonder...
If climate change were deemed to be caused by the use of pharmaceuticals, not by combustion of fossil fuels, would our leaders seek to ban prescription drugs by 2050? Would there be a movement to move to a world dependent solely on "green health" solutions, such as herbal and vitamin supplements, healthy eating, active lifestyles, meditation, acupuncture, homeopathy, etc?
Would a significant part of the broader healthcare sector find a way to argue climate change is too risky to continue to feed the menace of prescription medicine, happy to expose itself to the hundreds of trillions in global subsidies and spending needed to develop the "difficult, but necessary" alternatives to prescription drugs that our experts say are needed?
Would those who support a transition be seen as visionaries who understand the existential threat of climate change? Would they be enablers of trillions of dollars flowing into green health? Would they write books, give TED talks, have podcasts, be interviewed in documentaries about what we need to do to save the planet? Would they become wildly famous and wealthy along the way?
Would college graduates steeped in the language and rhetoric of social justice argue in the NYT, WaPo, the Guardian, the Atlantic, and myriad other news outlets for the "better world" of green health? Would youth fill our streets and campuses protesting the effects of an oppressive legacy of dirty health care and Big Pharma?
Would anyone point out the potentially huge loss of life and a reduced quality of life for billions if we abandon proven drug therapies? How about the impact on the world’s economy, both from removing drugs and dismantling the pharmaceutical industry? Would the FDA and other scientific organizations publish papers showing how the cost of removing drugs from our lives outweighs the benefits of keeping temperature changes below 2C?
Would pharmaceutical industry professionals raise concerns about the rationale of abandoning a system that's caused global life expectancies to rise to levels unimaginable only a century ago? Would these professionals be labeled climate deniers, obstacles to a better world, greedy defenders of the status quo, narrow-minded enemies of Earth?
Would anyone ask how we’d fight infections, resolve pandemics, put patients under before surgery, or reduce cholesterol, high blood pressure and heart disease? What would cancer treatment look like? How could we avoid undermining—and inevitably reversing—the health outcomes we've fought so hard to achieve? Would workers at pharmaceuticals demand their employers discontinue research on new medicines? Would politicians pass laws to fund 30% of the cost of producing so-called superfoods?
Would anyone outside the medical and health community stand up and ask, "What the hell are we doing?" If they did, what would be the response?
Tell us, what would be worse—no fossil fuels or no pharmaceuticals?
Don replaces fossil fuels with pharmaceuticals in his argument …but Interesting crossover here … many drugs are derived from petroleum products & all are dependent on fossil fuels to manufacture … and almost all hospital / health equipment is as well. World wide we must use trillions of safe disposal plastic syringes & petroleum based IV bags to administer life saving medications every single day. Not to mention almost all other hospital equipment - surgical, ventilators/oxygen, IV pumps/tubing, beds, masks, gowns, gloves, huge quantities of plastic disposal containers, etc - the list of hospital/health care products derived from & produced via petroleum products is endless.