Research Funding in the Hands of the Drug Companies
Two major problems have arisen that impede the rapid introduction of this cost effective, safe and rationally developed approach, the Buteyko Method, into mainstream medicine. Firstly the resistance to a radical change in thinking of the medical establishment and change of therapeutic approach to a broad range of respiratory complaints that till now relied on increasingly aggressive drug therapy. Secondly the understandable reluctance of the pharmaceutical industry, that gains 20% of its revenue from such complaints, to fund more research into the Buteyko Method to break this conceptual mind-set in medicine.
These problems of increased verification through research and radically changing the accepted protocol for treating asthma are both made more difficult by the fact that we cannot agree what asthma is in the first place. All argument and debate takes place on shifting sands of opinion and definition. See "What is Asthma?" article to be published soon.
The National Health Service & Health Promotion
From society's point of view our national health service stands to reduce the medical expenditure on drugs and expert medical intervention by introducing the Buteyko Method by £1-3 billion per year or approximately £500-750 per year per patient. (Two GP surgeries in the UK have already demonstrated such savings on trial schemes)
The additional bonus goes to patients who will not suffer the myriad side effects of drug therapy have fewer sickness days off work and will enjoy a better quality of life.
However, from the standpoint of the drug companies, there will be a commensurate loss in earnings that will be difficult to compensate for in any other field as the repercussions of reducing chronic hidden hyperventilation go far beyond the treatment of asthma. Hypertension, panic attacks, sleep disorders, hay fever, skin disorders, IBS, angina and many more modern diseases often show marked improvement when the patient's breathing is normalized. A further potential benefit to the nation's finances and health but a further blow to the drug industry.
If we add all such potential savings we are looking at a NHS that would be able to redirect resources to those areas currently under-funded and to generally raise the quality of care for the remaining people who needed care to the highest levels possible.
At this stage it would be wise to dramatically increase funding of HEALTH PROMOTION, perhaps the most injured victim of modern medical development.
Health promotion is not synonymous with current preventative medicine that tends to be focussed primarily on early diagnosis of pathologies but is about engaging the patient in a positive attitude towards enhancing their own health and wellbeing.
|
