A recent personal experience has highlighted the need to reassess our priorities when it comes to new technologies. As someone over 50 and in a vulnerable group due to past smoking, I tested positive for COVID-19 and was in need of the new drug Paxlovid, which has been shown to reduce viral load and prevent severe symptoms. However, obtaining the medication proved to be an unnecessarily difficult process.
In the United States, healthcare is often tied to technology-driven capitalism. I scheduled a video call with my healthcare provider, One Medical, which is now owned by Amazon. Despite being approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for COVID-19 treatment, the nurse I spoke with initially claimed Paxlovid was not helpful against the virus due to new strains. After challenging this assertion, I eventually managed to secure a prescription from a different nurse.
This experience raises questions about our healthcare system and the accessibility of new technologies. Despite the availability of Paxlovid and its mild side effects, doctors are hesitant to prescribe it. The situation contrasts with the promise that groundbreaking technologies will improve our lives and be readily accessible.
Moreover, while potentially life-saving medications face barriers, questionable technologies like self-driving cars are rapidly being authorized without much consideration. In San Francisco, Alphabet/Google-owned Waymo and General Motors-owned Cruise have been granted permission to operate self-driving taxis around the clock. However, these vehicles have caused numerous disruptions and accidents, obstructed emergency vehicles, and even resulted in the death of a dog.
In response, a local activist group called Safe Street Rebel has encouraged people to place road cones on the hoods of self-driving cars to stop them. Despite these concerns, companies like Cruise are merely reducing the number of taxis on the streets without addressing the underlying issues. Meanwhile, public transportation systems, which have historically been effective, are being neglected.
This discrepancy illustrates the need for a reevaluation of our priorities. It is concerning that accessing life-saving medication can be challenging, while potentially problematic technologies are quickly embraced. As we move forward, it is crucial to ensure that the introduction of new technologies is accompanied by appropriate regulation and consideration for public well-being.
Insights:
– The personal experience described in the article sheds light on the challenges individuals may face in accessing life-saving medication, despite its availability and approval.
– The contrast between the hesitation to prescribe a medication with proven benefits and the rapid authorization of potentially problematic technologies highlights a discrepancy in our priorities.
– The article emphasizes the need to reassess our healthcare system and ensure that new technologies are introduced with appropriate regulation and consideration for public safety.
