Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Bad for our health

By Mal Fletcher - posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013


Without proper accountability - not only to other scientists but to politicians, the law and a cautious wider community - science becomes a form of secular religion. When that happens, scientists scoff at the subjectivity of other forms of belief while expecting that they will be shown a kind of priestly deference.

In a sense, our culture encourages us to place our 'faith' in drugs in a quasi-religious way.

Ubiquitous advertising by drug companies offers us near instant cures for even the most mundane aches and pains. In the process it oversimplifies our physical shortcomings, passes over our innermost pain and promises shortcuts to 'salvation'.

Advertisement

Some drug suppliers present narratives and images which suggest that our lives will improve on a wide variety of fronts, if we will use their products. They play on human aspiration in much the same cynical way as cigarette advertisers once did (and would still do, if they were allowed).

The commercial power of the drug companies is considerable. It is set to increase as we become more reliant on emerging biotechnologies, nanorobotics and the like.

We must take advantage of every reasonable possibility to end human suffering. But we must do so in an ethical way, keeping on eye on the difference between progress and progressivism.

The latter idolises pragmatism; it says, 'If a thing can be done it should be done.' It has little time for ethical debate or considered deliberation on what progress really means, in any holistic sense.

In the end, psychological and emotional wellbeing are not primarily found within the purview of the medical profession. They are not achieved with the help of science alone.

The sooner we can wean ourselves off an overwhelming reliance on pure science, the sooner we might be able to see our way clear to other important solutions for the psyche and the soul.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

This is an excerpt from Fascinating Times: A Social Commentary a new book by Mal Fletcher available for Kindle.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mal Fletcher is a media social futurist and commentator, keynote speaker, author, business leadership consultant and broadcaster currently based in London. He holds joint Australian and British citizenship.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mal Fletcher

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy