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.
Art and Unethical Money
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by doversoul1 View PostWell, 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
-
-
Originally posted by doversoul1 View PostWell, I’m sorry I started this thread. It looks as if the protest is nothing whatsoever to do with art and patronage
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by pastoralguy View PostOh 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?
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
-
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostBut 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
-
-
Originally posted by pastoralguy View PostOh 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?
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
-
-
Originally posted by richardfinegold View PostDon’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
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
-
-
Originally posted by richardfinegold View PostThe 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.
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
-
-
Originally posted by richardfinegold View PostDon’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
* 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
-
-
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
-
-
Originally posted by oddoneout View PostIf 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.
An 'interesting' article, as you say.Last edited by doversoul1; 28-03-19, 10:27.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by doversoul1 View PostHow 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)
.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by richardfinegold View PostI 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
-
Comment