Obviously, given what I do, I am naturally inclined towards the unfettered dissemination of information. That people have the right to know, and on the basis of knowing can make up their own minds, about all sorts of things.
And in general, in this country we have a fairly free access to much in this regard, notwithstanding the blatant actions by the last Government to make the Freedom of Information Act too expensive for ordinary people to use.
But I have for some time been perturbed by a series of 'public information' advertisements which run on RTE Radio. I believe they are designed to manipulate our fears.
They are the 'medical problem' ads, urging us to have investigated a whole range of potential ailments, from erectile dysfunction to bowel cancer and stuff about practically every other part of our body in between.
I have no problem with people being encouraged to be pro-active about the state of their health. There is no truism more true than that a health issue caught early has a much better chance of being successfully treated than if left to fester quietly until later. Lives, and money, can be saved by making us aware of potential problems within ourselves.
What bothers me is the proliferation of these ads, mostly on radio, over recent years. Not because we are being pushed to investigate if we have the symptoms of the particular issue being aired. Rather because of who is pushing the issue.
Public health information provided by the State, whether through education or through such advertisements, can only be regarded as positive. But are these ads being provided by the State altruistically as a public service?
Because at the end of each one, you will have noticed that they are sponsored by one or more pharmaceutical companies. Each of which has a vested interest in fuelling health angst about the subject under discussion.
I remember being told some years ago, by a friend involved in the retail pharmaceutical business, that there was no money in being a local chemist until the era of 'preventative' rather than only 'curative' pharmacy. In other words, we now spend a lot more money on taking stuff to prevent us getting ill than on dealing with illnesses.
My bottom line on this is, rather than depend on the support of — and therefore the advertising of — pharmaceutical companies to provide such public health information, it should come independently and paid for out of a public health budget.
Am I being too picky?
