There is an old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is apt when things are running smoothly and there are few problems in an environment. In this case, you want things to stay the same - and even perpetuate tradition; you don't want to meddle and make big changes, and in-so-doing cause unnecessary problems to occur. But modern-day society is not like that - it is not smooth and untroubled. It has at least two major areas of social problems: mass killing sprees, and an epidemic of niggling health and behavioural problems that are psychoemotionally-related (like ADHD, obsessive compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, obesity, and drug, alcohol, and cigarette addictions). And contrary to medical belief, psychoemotional suffering has also been found to be a major underlying contributer to more serious physical health problems like Alzheimer's, cancer, stroke, and heart disease. These two problem areas could begin to be healed - with the introduction of the new laws of pain science - but are being prevented from being so by two traditionalist lobby groups: the gun and medical lobbies respectively. Government cannot stop shooting sprees largely due to the Gun Lobby (especially in the US); just as Government cannot heal Psychoemotional Suffering largely due to the Medical Lobby.
You might say that the gun and medical lobbies are unrelated entities. And in a sense you would be right - in that one kills while the other heals. (But, then, the gun lobby could say that killing animals puts meat on the table, and, so, facilitates health and survival.) Despite their different aims, there are interrelationships between the two in other respects. For example, both gun and medical enthusiasts have historically developed their skills on the battlefield - as a result of our species suffering from endemic warfare (which is a psychoemotional problem). Their technologies are also similar, involving blades, hammers, drills, bullets, and guns of various designs. And their terminology is similar: the former has "targets", ordinances delivering "payloads", machine gun "spray" to destroy cell enclaves, and night goggles to provide "enhanced vision" capabilities; while the latter has "targeted" drugs, drugs delivering "payloads", radiation "spray" to destroy cell growths, and bullet-like cameras that give "enhanced vision" of the body's internals. Gun enthusiasts are weapons technology buffs; while medical enthusiasts are medical technology buffs - with both now rushing to take advantage of new 3D printing technology. One could say that the former group is all about cutting, hammering, and shooting us from the outside, while the latter group is all about cutting, hammering, and shooting us on the inside.
Hasn't the gun association been highlighted in the US news lately as a powerful and belligerent lobby group, capable of interfering with the government's gun laws? While in Australia in the early 2000s, didn't the health minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, publicly complain about the incessant lobbying of the Australian Medical Association - and, in fact, its interference in one of the government's health recommendations (concerning the value of statin drugs)? The by-laws of these two lobby groups are also similar in their explicit intent of seeking significant government influence:
* The National Rifle Association's lobbying aims: http://www.nraila.org/about-nra-ila.aspx
* The American Medical Association's lobbying aims: http://www.ampaconline.org/about-us/
* The Shooters and Fishers Party's lobbying aims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooters_and_Fishers
* The Australian Medical Association's lobbying aims: https://ama.com.au/ama-mission-statement
When it comes to addressing killing sprees and health problems, instead of allowing governments to introduce significant changes to combat these two social problems, the lobby groups vigorously and stubbornly promote their own (similarly-themed) countermeasures:
* To counter shooting and knifing sprees, the gun lobby recommends that the public should arm themselves with guns and bullets to shoot down the problem.
* To counter health problems, the medical lobby recommends that the public should arm themselves with pharmaceutical (magic bullet) drugs to shoot down the problem.
Unrelated they may be in some respects, but the gun and medical lobbies are more like the flip sides of the same coin - albeit, a battered and bruised coin, crudely minted from unresolved human violence and suffering.
After the Scottish Dunblane school massacre of 1996 (involving 17 deaths) - perpetrated by a psychoemotionally-disturbed man who had a twisted interest in boys - the government, with public support, stood up to the gun lobby and introduced new gun control laws. Similarly, after the Australian Port Arthur mass killing spree of the same year (involving 35 deaths) - again, perpetrated by a psychoemotionally-disturbed person who had a history of being bullied - and who modeled his attack on the Dunblane one - the Australian Government stood up to the gun lobby via a gun buy-back scheme and gun control laws. But the lobby in this case has since clawed back its influence - to the point where they have convinced the NSW government to allow them to hunt in National Parks. This is despite some park visitors' claims of near misses from stray bullets, such bullets slamming into nearby farm houses, and at least one person shot and killed after being mistaken for a deer. [The NSW Government has since suspended the program, as a result of public concerns, such as those raised on the "Four Corners" TV program.] Add to this the fact that gun violence has increased in -particularly in Sydney - with weapon parts obtained on the Internet, home-manufacturing of guns, and theft of registered owners' firearms.
Meanwhile in health care, Australia's two most recent health ministers have not had any relevant qualifications for the top job. Despite this, politicians can get by because their role is largely an administrative one. As the current health minister, Tanya Plibersek, shows, "...but when I've got decisions to make between new drugs to fund, palliative care services to fund, dementia to fund, extra funding for hospitals, extra doctors we want to employ, extra nurses we want to employ then I have to prioritise that spending".
But what happens when you are working in a field that you have little knowledge and experience in? You tend to get exploited by those who have that knowledge and experience - and power. So when asked about the health department's aims, she just parrots a medical lobbyist-type point of view, "I think we've got a lot to be proud of with our health system... Our five-year cancer survival rates are the best in the world. In the last few years since 2007 we've got an extra 7,000 doctors and 16,000 extra nurses in our hospital system...Between now and 2020 an extra $20 billion [is] going into our hospitals and personalised medicines that will cure more people with fewer side effects but we have to understand genomics and all the new technologies that go with them to really benefit from that."
In 2010, a Nature magazine survey on genomics found that most scientists agree that after ten years of the program it has proved a failure at its claims of being able to heal health problems - and provides no such expectations for doing so in the future. Nature is recognised by scientists and politicians alike as the world's most prestigious scientific journal. And, yet, here we have the Health Minister stating that we must be supportive of genomics. Clearly, she is not up-to-date with current developments in the health care field.
Weapons manufacturers make different types of bullets that do specific jobs, which can all be helpful in winning a battle. But bullets do not heal the cause of warfare, so more conflicts will arise in the future. Similarly, medicine produces a variety of "magic bullet drugs" that are also helpful in winning a battle against health symptoms like cancer. But drugs do not heal the underlying cause of human suffering, so health problems will arise again in the future. In fact, all that these magic bullet drugs are doing is pushing back the time when health problems like cancer finally bite hard. (Currently, 5 years of being cancer free is the magic target for effectiveness - which is hardly a "cure".) As Plibersek herself states, "We invest tens of thousands of dollars in very late stage cancer medicines that might extend life for six weeks or six months. Tens of thousands of dollars. But we're happy to pay that as Australians because we understand the value of caring for every Australian well." Our Health Minister is happy to care for Australians - but not happy to cure them properly with a more up-to-date and more effective science that heals the underlying (psychoemotional) suffering to many health and behavioural problems.
Claiming to be able to "cure" health problems by poring public funds into genomics and related technologies is akin to saying, "We will end killing sprees by pporingmillions of public dollars into weapons research". Guns have little to do with curbing violence, and genomics has little to do with healing (psychoemotionally-related) health problems. Genomics is primarily a technological pursuit - not a healing service. Any government Home Security Minister who believes that gun ownership can curb killing sprees should be sacked. Similarly, any government Health Minister who believes that genomics can heal health problems should also be sacked.
Clearly, the trouble with following singular lobby groups' interests is that government departments' views become synchronistically narrow, shallow, and ineffective. A government department needs to be more open-minded, more accepting of different interest groups' viewpoints, and have a broader awareness of recent developments and public concerns - not just be a ventriloquist's doll for a lobby group.
The hesitation, and sometimes paralysis, of governments around the world to introduce significant new changes into society, to begin healing these problems of mass killing sprees and psychoemotional suffering is alarming. Although lobby group members are good people - even good people can have excessive self-interests, and be stubborn, obstructive, and resistant to change. Currently, two powerful lobby groups are inadvertently (respectively) allowing innocent people - including children - to be occasionally killed, or some people to continue to suffer and struggle with psychoemotional problems throughout their lives - just because they want their traditional interests to continue to be catered for by government. It is almost a case of powerful lobby groups tugging on the government's ear and urging their own distorted slogan of, "If it's broke, don't fix it!". This raises concerns of just who is running today's societies: the government or the lobby group.
References:
"The Health Debate", Q&A, ABC1, (video transcript), Australian Broadcasting Commission, Monday 22 April, 2013,
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3732232.htm
