Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by iso1337 2427 days ago
This will be an unpopular opinion, but do you think that money could be better spent on other health initiatives like prevention? Is spending 10-100k per month so rich people in developed countries can live a few months longer really that much more moral?

Consider that orphan diseases are often not worked on due to either 1) not enough rich people have the disease or 2) only poor people have the disease so it's not worth it.

People in developing countries have serious diseases, but there's no money in it so no one is working on it (minus some efforts from people like Bill Gates).
2 comments
fstopmick 2427 days ago
I'd be really disappointed if your opinion is unpopular. I completely agree and find it depressing to see how our culture admires Gates as an idol of altruism. He's had impact, sure, in the same way that someone with an infinite river has the ability to extinguish forest fires but extinguishes a few brush fires instead... just enough to outpace his competitors and lock in the perception of being most benevolent.

Worst form of social darwinism EVER.

link
throwaway07Ju19 2427 days ago
A sibling comment in this thread also applies here. "No good deed goes unpunished!"
link
DrScientist 2426 days ago
For lung cancer - yep - banning smoking would not only massively reduce the rates, but also other lung diseases - China is heading for an absolute epidermic here.

However, for those people that have or are going to get lung cancer or diabetes or other generally ( not always ) 'self-inflicted' diseases - should we just say - sorry - no treatment - it's you're own silly fault?

For heart disease - actually the best treatments are effectively preventative already - in cancer HPV vaccine is aimed at reducing cervical cancer - I've worked with the inventors of that.

In terms of 'whataboutery' of should you be spending money on rich peoples diseases ( whether self inflicted or not ), when you could save more lives in other countries with basic sanitation.

Well that's a whole different question - a question for collective action through governments or charity - not a question for commercial companies. Commercial companies have to find people able to pay for what they do ( which could be governments or charities ).

Personally I don't see why it needs to be either/or - ie why we can't we work on both cure's for cancer and provide clean water?

link