I’m not in the slightest bit surprised. The least studied diseases and the most undiagnosed diseases in this country are diseases that have no long-term pharmacuetical or surgical treatment.
The most profitable drugs are anti-depressents and pain-killers because they do not actually address the underlying cause of disease, but they do make living with it more bareable. They must be taken perpetually, and eventually dosages must be increased to offset growing tolerance and progressive physical decline.
And while I know socialization isn’t the answer, I don’t think the profit motive makes very much sense in medicine either. In fact, despite my strong pro-business pro-trade pro-international trade stances, I fail to see how research science can really thrive in a profit driven environment. So I have no answer, but I do see a problem..
“I fail to see how research science can really thrive in a profit driven environment.”
While I fail to see how research science can really thrive in a “politically” driven environment, which is what would happen if medical drug research was mostly directed by legislation.
In fact, my point is demonstrated with current events in which the private research world continues to demonstrate, with increasing frequency, how ADULT stem cells are proving themselves in new medical treatments all the time, while the politicians and the media hide and ignore those facts while insisting that stem cell research is dead unless the public funds EMBRYONIC stem cell research.
Yet, I do recognize that “orphan diseases” have always had a hard time achieving the attention that seriously fighting them would require (diseases and medical problems where the R&D for their “cures” will be astronomical on a patient-by-patient basis - because the portion of the population with those ailments is small), but legislation has been passed, previously, to specifically fund R&D for such ailments. But, as noted in my first comment above, the choices of which “orphans” get those R&D dollars comes down to political decisions over a tax-payer funded budget for them - which would be the case, no matter what that budget amount was.
The case for those “orphan” ailments could be given greater support if it was pointed out, more forcefully and more often, that, as science often demonstrates, the process of finding solutions for them can/may/might include the discovery of basic scientific knowledge that can/may/might prove useful in as yet unforeseen areas of medical concern.
Morally, all medical practice is some form of triage - available resources + number and severity of cases = sequence in which doctors can and should (morally) give their attention to the cases they have - because, there are never perfect solutions, perfect levels of resources to at every single moment “save” everyone.