The History of Medicine

Sources: This American Life Episode 392 "Someone Else's Money"
             The Moviegoer by Walker Percy

So let's talk about angst. I have an opinion that angst is what makes art art, but we'll save that little gem for another day. Jack Bolling, the protagonist in The Moviegoer is an uncomfortable kind of angsty. Think Holden Caulfield, all grown up, a little racist and a little sexist, and even more girl-crazy, and you have Jack Bolling. He's a stock broker of sorts, although the specifics of his work are hazy for me, but his aunt always thought he would use his intelligence for something more. "My aunt is convinced I have a 'flair for research.' This is not true. If I had a flair for research, I would be doing research" (51). Later on in the narrative, Jack tells of an experience in which he tried research, but was alternately distracted and depressed by the summer light coming through the laboratory windows. Angst, anyone?
Listening to the This American Life podcast about the health reform debate, a little detail snagged my attention. The first medicine that actually cured disease (as opposed to masking or alleviating symptoms) was called salvarsan. What did salvarsan cure, you may ask? Syphillus. The first disease ever cured by modern medicine with Ehrlich's magic bullet was an STD. Immediately, I begin to commiserate with Jack Bolling.
What does salvarsan say about modern medicine and health care? I don't have all the answers, but I mourn for ol' Ben Franklin. Too little, too late, is the expression that comes to mind; his lechery could have continued at least a decade longer.

Why should Jack Bolling feel bullied into entering a profession which, as we learn more and more, is often dominated by dollars but not sense? I wonder how many dollars are going to market cures for gonorrhea and masks for genital herpes that could be going to cancer research or sex education. For me, this little anecdote is not a rock-solid indictment of pharmaceutical companies. But it does help justify my distrust. Capitalism and health care inevitably look for an economic bottom line. Easy cures, marketed for major bucks, improve profit margins a lot more quickly than drugs for terminal illnesses or genetic disorders. What kind of research is really being done? I, honestly, am not informed enough to answer this question, but I would love to know more. Would the government do better? Probably not, but aspects of health care reformed aimed at evaluating pharmaceutical companies and making the real costs of health care readily available would be a refreshing change. Meanwhile, I will continue to be angsty.