Art and Unethical Money

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • doversoul1
    Ex Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 7132

    #31
    Well, I’m sorry I started this thread. It looks as if the protest is nothing whatsoever to do with art and patronage but about one pharmaceutical product in the US almost with art as a convenient hostage. And I find this article so infantile that I could hardly read to the end. Ah well, maybe it’s time I moved to Narnia.
    The US photographer should be applauded for using her cultural capital to take on the opioid business, writes Guardian columnist Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett
    Last edited by doversoul1; 27-03-19, 16:22.

    Comment

    • MrGongGong
      Full Member
      • Nov 2010
      • 18357

      #32
      Originally posted by doversoul1 View Post
      Ah well, maybe it’s time I moved to Narnia.
      I used to live in Totnes (twin towns and all that)

      Comment

      • pastoralguy
        Full Member
        • Nov 2010
        • 7799

        #33
        Originally posted by doversoul1 View Post
        Well, I’m sorry I started this thread. It looks as if the protest is nothing whatsoever to do with art and patronage but about one pharmaceutical product in the US. And I find this article so infantile that I could hardly read to the end. Ah well, maybe it’s time I moved to Narnia.
        https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...acklers-opioid

        Oh no, doversoul! It's been very interesting. Imho, take the money and run! And if, say, I am a aware of a concert in which a favourite artist plays a favourite work and is sponsored by XYZ then it's up to ME to decide or not if I support it or not. And if I chose to boycott it then I shouldn't be critical of those who chose not to!

        Whilst I may sympathise with anyone who becomes addicted to a substance then it's surely the Dr who is prescribing it, not the the producers who are to blame? I'm not sure this is a good analogy but... If I buy, hire or steal a Mercedes van and drive it maliciously at a group of people I disagree with and cause injury, does that mean Mercedes should stop producing vans?
        Last edited by pastoralguy; 27-03-19, 16:37.

        Comment

        • Richard Barrett
          Guest
          • Jan 2016
          • 6259

          #34
          Originally posted by doversoul1 View Post
          Well, I’m sorry I started this thread. It looks as if the protest is nothing whatsoever to do with art and patronage
          But the general discussion of art and patronage is IMO valuable and even urgent. I was reminded of an open letter a while ago from the German composer Nicolaus Huber (not to be confused with other composers with very similar names!) explaining his rejection of a commission funded by the Siemens Kulturstiftung because of that company's Nazi past. He made the point that as a comfortably off composer with a nice professorship etc. he could afford to refuse it while recognising that many less fortunate composers wouldn't be able to, and this struck me as a really bad position to take. (For example he could have taken the cash and then distributed it to some deserving individuals among his younger colleagues.) I don't at all like the idea that there should be a property qualification on taking an ethical stance towards arts funding. What he's saying effectively is that in his earlier life he might have had to "take the money and run" but now he's successful he has the luxury to make a political statement.

          Comment

          • doversoul1
            Ex Member
            • Dec 2010
            • 7132

            #35
            Originally posted by pastoralguy View Post
            Oh no, doversoul! It's been very interesting. Imho, take the money and run! And if, say, I am a aware of a concert in which a favourite artist plays a favourite work and is sponsored by XYZ then it's up to ME to decide or not if I support it or not. And if I chose to boycott it then I shouldn't be critical of those who chose not to!

            Whilst I may sympathise with anyone who becomes addicted to a substance then it's surely the Dr who is prescribing it, not the the producers who are to blame? I'm not sure this is a good analogy but... If I buy, hire or steal a Mercedes van and drive it maliciously at a group of people I disagree with and cause injury, does that mean Mercedes should stop producing vans?
            Thank you for your kind words.

            When medicine is private business as it is in the US (and in Japan), prescription becomes muddy to say the least. We do know that things are nothing like perfect in NHS but targeting art institutions in the UK seems rather unfair, if not irrelevant.

            Comment

            • doversoul1
              Ex Member
              • Dec 2010
              • 7132

              #36
              Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
              But the general discussion of art and patronage is IMO valuable and even urgent. I was reminded of an open letter a while ago from the German composer Nicolaus Huber (not to be confused with other composers with very similar names!) explaining his rejection of a commission funded by the Siemens Kulturstiftung because of that company's Nazi past. He made the point that as a comfortably off composer with a nice professorship etc. he could afford to refuse it while recognising that many less fortunate composers wouldn't be able to, and this struck me as a really bad position to take. (For example he could have taken the cash and then distributed it to some deserving individuals among his younger colleagues.) I don't at all like the idea that there should be a property qualification on taking an ethical stance towards arts funding. What he's saying effectively is that in his earlier life he might have had to "take the money and run" but now he's successful he has the luxury to make a political statement.
              Affordable principle. I guess he has the upper limit beyond which he will not turn the offer/commission down.

              Comment

              • Richard Barrett
                Guest
                • Jan 2016
                • 6259

                #37
                Originally posted by doversoul1 View Post
                Affordable principle. I guess he has the upper limit beyond which he will not turn the offer/commission down.
                As Marx put it, "these are my principles. And if you don't like them - I have others."

                Comment

                • richardfinegold
                  Full Member
                  • Sep 2012
                  • 7737

                  #38
                  Originally posted by pastoralguy View Post
                  Oh no, doversoul! It's been very interesting. Imho, take the money and run! And if, say, I am a aware of a concert in which a favourite artist plays a favourite work and is sponsored by XYZ then it's up to ME to decide or not if I support it or not. And if I chose to boycott it then I shouldn't be critical of those who chose not to!

                  Whilst I may sympathise with anyone who becomes addicted to a substance then it's surely the Dr who is prescribing it, not the the producers who are to blame? I'm not sure this is a good analogy but... If I buy, hire or steal a Mercedes van and drive it maliciously at a group of people I disagree with and cause injury, does that mean Mercedes should stop producing vans?
                  Don’t you work as a Nurse, PG? I am really disappointed by your comment.
                  The problem with the Sacklers is that Purdue went out of it’s way to market their product to Physicians as non addicting compared to other opioids, even after abundant evidence began to accumulate to the contrary. They their ploughed their money into the American Political System to suppress those reports and discourage regulation. All of this was done at a time when we were being harangued by regulators for undertreating pain-Pain is the sixth vital sign—and it created a perfect storm

                  Comment

                  • pastoralguy
                    Full Member
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 7799

                    #39
                    Originally posted by richardfinegold View Post
                    Don’t you work as a Nurse, PG? I am really disappointed by your comment.
                    The problem with the Sacklers is that Purdue went out of it’s way to market their product to Physicians as non addicting compared to other opioids, even after abundant evidence began to accumulate to the contrary. They their ploughed their money into the American Political System to suppress those reports and discourage regulation. All of this was done at a time when we were being harangued by regulators for undertreating pain-Pain is the sixth vital sign—and it created a perfect storm
                    Yes, but I'm a nurse in the UK in the NHS where drugs are dispensed without the mighty $ being a consideration. If indeed Purdue spent money on suppressing reports then that says much more about the broken American 'Healthcare' system than it does about the drug itself.

                    Put bluntly, if a homeless person comes into an NHS A+E unit complaining of chest pain then they will receive the same level of service that a billionaire would be given in the same circumstances. In the USA, not so much...

                    Believe me when I tell you that we in the UK are incredibly disappointed that your country elected a 'president' like trump. (Sic). Of course, he is SO dedicated to health care for all...

                    Comment

                    • ferneyhoughgeliebte
                      Gone fishin'
                      • Sep 2011
                      • 30163

                      #40
                      Originally posted by richardfinegold View Post
                      The problem with the Sacklers is that Purdue went out of it’s way to market their product to Physicians as non addicting compared to other opioids, even after abundant evidence began to accumulate to the contrary.
                      I'm glad you posted this, rfg, because I've been feeling that I've missed the plot on this Thread, and my attitude had been much the same as pasto's in #33. I knew somebody who was prescribed Oxycontin for pain relief during the final stages of a terrible illness - the result was extraordinarily successful, allowing the patient ten months without pain.

                      As I understand your comment here, the Sacklers have deliberately misled GPs in the US, which I find despicable - criminally despicable, I would say. But the drug itself, under carefully-monitored medical supervision, it is/can be a real blessing (I would call it nothing less) to sufferers of extreme pain.
                      [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

                      Comment

                      • doversoul1
                        Ex Member
                        • Dec 2010
                        • 7132

                        #41
                        Originally posted by richardfinegold View Post
                        Don’t you work as a Nurse, PG? I am really disappointed by your comment.
                        The problem with the Sacklers is that Purdue went out of it’s way to market their product to Physicians as non addicting compared to other opioids, even after abundant evidence began to accumulate to the contrary. They their ploughed their money into the American Political System to suppress those reports and discourage regulation. All of this was done at a time when we were being harangued by regulators for undertreating pain-Pain is the sixth vital sign—and it created a perfect storm
                        How does the UK galleries losing funds improve the addiction problems in the US? Or is this yet another NIMBY*-ism?
                        * not in my back yard (just in case)

                        Years ago when I visited my mother back in Japan, I was shocked to find a pile of medicines in her cupboard. I asked her what they were for. She said ‘Oh, I don’t need them but if I don’t ask for any medicine now, the doctor won’t see me when I am really ill’. As it happened, one of my old school friends was the nurse at this doctor’s surgery. She told me how amusing it was to hear the reps from pharmaceutical companies talking to the doctor; it was an equivalent to ‘Yes, sir, no sir, three bags full sir.

                        Whilst I wouldn’t say this is the complete norm, I wouldn’t say it’s a rare exception where doctors and hospitals are private enterprise.

                        Comment

                        • oddoneout
                          Full Member
                          • Nov 2015
                          • 9272

                          #42
                          If the protests/obstructions were about the issue of prescribing practice as a whole, using one person's experience as an example,rather than that person's experience being the whole thrust, then I would have been more inclined to view such action less negatively, although even then there is the fact that US and UK health services are not directly comparable, so the question of the relevance of such action in the UK arises.
                          There are always folk ready to get behind such public displays without looking at the wider picture. The protests against BP's sponsorship of the arts at least had the merit of environmental concerns being relevant internationally, weren't all about one person's experience.
                          It also presumably helps if the person making the threats of non-participation has some standing in the art world. I had never heard of Nan Goldin prior to this debate, but I assume that her threat to nix the retrospective was considered to be of some import, and worth taking action on.
                          Here is another article on the subject. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...acklers-opioid
                          There are some 'interesting' assertions in it.

                          Comment

                          • doversoul1
                            Ex Member
                            • Dec 2010
                            • 7132

                            #43
                            Originally posted by oddoneout View Post
                            If the protests/obstructions were about the issue of prescribing practice as a whole, using one person's experience as an example,rather than that person's experience being the whole thrust, then I would have been more inclined to view such action less negatively, although even then there is the fact that US and UK health services are not directly comparable, so the question of the relevance of such action in the UK arises.
                            There are always folk ready to get behind such public displays without looking at the wider picture. The protests against BP's sponsorship of the arts at least had the merit of environmental concerns being relevant internationally, weren't all about one person's experience.
                            It also presumably helps if the person making the threats of non-participation has some standing in the art world. I had never heard of Nan Goldin prior to this debate, but I assume that her threat to nix the retrospective was considered to be of some import, and worth taking action on.
                            Here is another article on the subject. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...acklers-opioid
                            There are some 'interesting' assertions in it.
                            Thank you for reminding us of the article (#31)

                            An 'interesting' article, as you say.
                            Last edited by doversoul1; 28-03-19, 10:27.

                            Comment

                            • richardfinegold
                              Full Member
                              • Sep 2012
                              • 7737

                              #44
                              Originally posted by doversoul1 View Post
                              How does the UK galleries losing funds improve the addiction problems in the US? Or is this yet another NIMBY*-ism?
                              * not in my back yard (just in case)

                              .
                              Beats the hell out of me, ds. I’m not the one giving Sackler money back from UK Art Galleries. Art Patronage has a long History of being supported by tainted money, as I pointed out in my first post in the thread. I am not advocating emptying out the British Museum and trying to restore the Elgin Marbles back to the Parthenon. I was reacting to PG comment that the Sacklers were innocent pill manufacturers who were ensnared by American Physicians hell bent on addicting their patients.

                              Comment

                              • pastoralguy
                                Full Member
                                • Nov 2010
                                • 7799

                                #45
                                Originally posted by richardfinegold View Post
                                I was reacting to PG comment that the Sacklers were innocent pill manufacturers who were ensnared by American Physicians hell bent on addicting their patients.
                                Let's be clear that is nothing 'innocent' about pill manufacturers. They are a business with shareholders who expect to be rewarded for their investment and that may mean having to take all measures to facilitate that and Sacklers obviously did whatever they had to do to make a profit in a competitive market. The fault is with the government that allows reports to be suppressed with money obviously changing hands! THAT is the problem- not the drug!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X