Medical advances aren’t just for the rich

A variety of blood pressure monitoring devices are being sold, or embedded into lifestyle gadgets, or registered for copyright, or being developed into smartphone applications.
 On the one hand, it is promising and refreshing to see that what was once an essential medical device which was exclusively used by doctors in the not-so-distant past is being simplified for public use on a massive scale. On the other hand, it is mind boggling how a very important medical tool is being commercialised so extensively.
What is happening with blood pressure monitoring is the tip of an iceberg that has always been there but largely overlooked. In a world where everything should earn its creator some financial “reward”, medical innovations are no exception. Effective drugs are still very expensive, at least at first, and life-saving equipment is often the privilege of rich or powerful people. The obscene amount of money involved is always justified through claims that if the innovators receive no financial benefits, there will be nobody left to innovate.
The argument is fine when it comes to other aspects of life. Music, movies, clothes, or smartphones, for example, require a lot of creativity and those involved in making them extraordinary should be rewarded. When it comes to the matter of health, should the same principle be applied?
Human beings are flawed, so it is understandable for creators of life-saving medicine to be doing so with financial returns in mind. But here we have a slippery slope that should alarm everyone. If we can create something that can improve people’s health, prolong or even save their lives, should we copyright it and hence limit its use?
If the answer is “No”, a great many things have gone wrong in global society. Countries shipping aid to people in distress is an example of humanity’s bright side, but our dark side prevails when no disaster strikes or when nobody is seemingly in danger. HIV-Aids drugs, for example, have virtually been divided into those for the poor to use, those for the richer, and those for the extremely rich. Hospital services can be classified, but should drugs be, too? And should copycat drug makers, who create “fake” medicine because they target people who can’t afford the expensive “innovations”, be demonised?
If the answers are “Yes”, we simply should reconsider whether this is right. That drug companies are rich tells us many things. One of them, obviously, is that they can earn less and make their existence more useful, all the while being reasonably wealthy. Another one is that they are rich because their innovations or distributions are needed by so many people. Last but not least, they are rich because their stock prices are high, thanks to an unhealthy public perception that if you come up with something truly useful for other human beings, you are supposed to reap the maximum gain from it.
There is no need to say why blood pressure monitoring is important. If it were not important, related devices or smartphone applications would not have been created in the first place. That blood pressure monitoring is making some people somewhere rich is also not a big surprise. The question is how much people should be “rewarded” for coming up with an easy and very accurate way of monitoring their fellow human beings’ health. After all, this kind of innovation has nothing to do with making people look better in photos than in real life or allowing them to watch favourite TV programmes on the go.