Capitalism, Competition and Consumerism

(Written 12/6/2009, but still applicable?  What do you think?)

 

In the Little House on the Prairie series, Pa would say in the wake of his frequent downturns, “There is no loss without some gain!”  Maybe the reverse is also true?

 

What has the Enlightenment and its many social ramifications done to us?  We could all list many of the benefits: various forms of high speed transportation, mass production of products that only the elite once dreamed of, such as books, now commonly available in the homes of the lower and middle classes, telecommunication, illumination, microwaves, medical technology, and on and on.

 

In the “early days”, or so it seemed from the version of history that I learned as a child, many of these wonderful developments arose out of necessity, to alleviate the struggles of man and improve his lot while he pursued a better life, personal  liberty and happiness.  But have we crossed a line where the benefits to man are diminished, and maybe actually a detriment? (I am not even thinking about our weapons of war!  That is another topic altogether!)

 

In my limited world of understanding, which involves medicine, I see this in play every day.  As I now think about it, I recall that it was rather obvious while I worked in a research and development lab before I started medical school.  At that time however, my perspective was much different.  And maybe my perspective at the moment is actually more naïve, or simply cynical.

 

While working in the lab, we were not exploring some great new idea that would benefit mankind.  Rather, we were exploring an established technology, looking for ways we could tweak it enough to look original enough to allow us to apply for a patent and grab some of the market share from our competitor.  Now, understandably, I am sure there have been some great discoveries and advancements resulting from this approach.  But I wonder what the actual cost is?  How much of our creative ability and resources are expended in the name of competition that could be better served in other original and more productive endeavors?

 

I very acutely see this same competitive philosophy in practice in the field of medicine.  For example, the market is packed with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs), powerful acid reducing drugs, all of which are relatively the same and interchangeable.  As its patent ran out on its PPI, a well-known pharmaceutical company came out with a new one! They made a minor alteration to the parent molecule, which they say has caused the drug to have a longer half life, which means it will stay in the system a bit longer, and therefore should have a therapeutic advantage.  Their sales agents have visited our clinic, buying our entire staff lunch, leaving samples of their product, so we can start patients on their new medicine.  They left literature and patient education material on which their product’s name is highly visible.  They hope that both physicians and patients will think of their product first, rather than the name of their competitors, and believe theirs provides a benefit over the growing number of generics now available.

 

I suspect the difference in products is more marketing than real!  Each company looks for some minor difference in their product which they “spin” to the medical community and the public as a great advantage.  Then, of course, the desired result is that their product will be prescribed, at a higher cost than the alternative generics that probably work just as well.  What are the real benefits?  What are the losses?  What else could we do with those dollars and research resources?  Are there not any original ideas that could be better explored?

 

Has marketing and consumerism taken us “over the line”?  Do we really need all the new stuff that is on the market?  Do the manufacturers and multitude of support businesses, such as the advertising, marketing and sales really have an interest in serving their customers?  Or is their interest really “the bottom line”?  Would our world be better served in some other way than “copy cat” technology that makes industry profitable?

 

Is there a way to find some (common, global) gain in this loss?

 

Thoughts from Athens,

 

Dave Drozek