In a previous post, The Politics of Measurement: Miscalculating Public Health , I wrote of the risk that drug companies will convince us that we are at risk for everything, so that we take many expensive meds to ward off disease. The money that is spent on drugs might do more for our health, I argued, if spent elsewhere (even on public transportation). Along the way, I cited health journalist Shannon Brownlee’s doubts about whether statins should be prescribed for people who have no symptoms of heart disease, and I wondered whether the drug was being expensively over-prescribed in Israel.
Gary Ginsburg, a world-class health economist (and South Jerusualemite), wrote me the following response, which I’m happy to present:
When I studied public health in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, I visited the old bus station and saw the separate doors with their "whites only" and "blacks only" notices written in large red letters. But very few things in life (except for fascism and cigarette smoking) can be viewed in terms of black and white.
My epidemiology teacher, David Kleinbaum, always told us that the answer to every question was "it depends." Should you care for the elderly and mentally ill in the community? Answer: "It depends" on the level of their functional ability.
Should we vaccinate against the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer?