I told him about my work at the QSA and that prior to working with Health, I had worked for the arms industry.
'And are you involved in policy-making for your government?'
'Well, no. But if we're not happy with what we see, we make recommendations to our Government.'
'And your Government will act on those recommendations? In the arms industry, for example?'
'Well, that depends.'
'On what?'
'A new weapon, for example, may be approved for use, based on the quality of its manufacture. But nevertheless, we at the QSA may feel that same weapon is in breach of the Atlantean Charter.'
'Meaning?'
'Precision-guided munition, for example. The projected degree of accuracy or the actual impact of the weapon on its target may be judged by us to be inhumane.'
'I am afraid I don't understand. Surely all weapons are inhumane.'
'Well, yes, but the term incorporates the potential extent of collateral damage.'
'You mean homicide?'
'Not homicide, surely?'
'What else can you truthfully call it? Killing people. If it's unintentional, then call it manslaughter. It's still homicide. No? I understand your judges impose a prison sentence for manslaughter, or unintentional killing, do they not? How is your so-called collateral damage any different? Are you and your colleagues at the QSA happy with that euphemism?'
'Collateral damage? There's no other way of putting it when applied to conflict. It can't be homicide because it's war. It happens during war.'
'Since when is war an excuse for homicide? Surely a war takes place between soldiers, armed soldiers, soldiers who fight back, soldiers who themselves might expect to be casualties of war? Wars are for soldiers, not civilians, not children. How does war justify the killing of children? '
'Well, I...that's why we at the QSA might recommend the removal of such a weapon from an army's arsenal...to prevent such killings....'
'And the approval of your recommendation depends on what?'
'Well, it depends on the Government's decision. We are not the decision-makers.'
'So if the government dismisses your recommendations, children suffer and die?'
'But children suffer and die anyway, Zol. It's war.'
'A war against children? I can see we're getting nowhere with this. Let's talk about your current work in health care quality control.'
'Well, I'm relatively new to the area, but our most recent issue had to do with a new drug which, we believe, was passed prematurely. I mean, the double-blind clinical trials should have gone on for at least another three years. That was our feeling, anyway. The matter is still under review.'
'Let's examine the trials. So whatever about the length of the clinical trials funded by a profit-driven pharmaceutical industry, were you happy with the choice of participants involved? '
'We don't decide that, Zol.'
'So you are not aware of the state of mental and physical health of the volunteers? Were they all in perfect health? Did any of them have any underlying conditions? Were you content with the potential knock-on effect of the drug on a variety of states of health or ill-health, that is to say, people with and without underlying conditions? Even though you may have recommended another three years of trials, were you satisfied that the drug has no long-term effects on the patient's mental and physical health or DNA? Are you aware of how the drug interacts exponentially with all of the other intercellular activities throughout the body, based on the patient's state of mental and physical health? And if the drug does prove to be effective for some, could there be a direct relation between the cost and reputation of the drug and its effectiveness as a placebo?'
'Well I...wasn't expecting an interrogation, Zol, to be honest.'
'Forgive me, Jordan. My questions were rhetorical. After all, the drug companies themselves don't know the answers either.'
# 24 next week! Catch up on: gregoryrosenstock.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment