Carl Elliott
I teach bioethics and philosophy at the University of Minnesota, where I am a professor in the Department of Philosophy and an affiliate faculty member in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications. I write about issues in the ethics and philosophy of psychiatry, research ethics, enhancement technologies, identity and selfhood.
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Carl Elliott
are? Many commercial tracing services now offer customers the
opportunity to explore their genetic ancestry. But that's by no
means the same thing as providing them with an identity.
ePDFPDFTOOLS SHARE
Abstract
Thirty years ago, the only people drug companies thought worth buying were doctors and politicians. But the ground began to shift in the 1980s, when HIV/AIDS activists showed everyone how powerful patient advocates could be. It didn't hurt that many advocates were so strapped for money that they could be purchased at bargain prices. Today over 80 percent of patient advocacy groups accept money from the pharmaceutical industry, and the testimony of marginalized patients carries such cultural power that drug companies like Sprout Pharmaceuticals are willing to fake grassroots patient movements. Whether you see this change as a victory for patients or a cautionary tale of institutional corruption depends on how deeply committed you are to the idea that free markets represent our best hope for the future of medicine. Count Sharon Batt as one of the skeptics. Her superb new book, Health Advocacy, Inc.: How Pharmaceutical Funding Changed the Breast Cancer Movement, is a deep scholarly account of the way that pharmaceutical funding has warped the patient advocacy movement into a tool for medical capitalism. Taking the Canadian breast cancer movement as a case study, Batt uses extensive interviews, scholarly resources, and her personal history to explore the struggles faced by patient advocates as they decide whether industry funding is necessary to keep their organizations afloat.
are? Many commercial tracing services now offer customers the
opportunity to explore their genetic ancestry. But that's by no
means the same thing as providing them with an identity.
ePDFPDFTOOLS SHARE
Abstract
Thirty years ago, the only people drug companies thought worth buying were doctors and politicians. But the ground began to shift in the 1980s, when HIV/AIDS activists showed everyone how powerful patient advocates could be. It didn't hurt that many advocates were so strapped for money that they could be purchased at bargain prices. Today over 80 percent of patient advocacy groups accept money from the pharmaceutical industry, and the testimony of marginalized patients carries such cultural power that drug companies like Sprout Pharmaceuticals are willing to fake grassroots patient movements. Whether you see this change as a victory for patients or a cautionary tale of institutional corruption depends on how deeply committed you are to the idea that free markets represent our best hope for the future of medicine. Count Sharon Batt as one of the skeptics. Her superb new book, Health Advocacy, Inc.: How Pharmaceutical Funding Changed the Breast Cancer Movement, is a deep scholarly account of the way that pharmaceutical funding has warped the patient advocacy movement into a tool for medical capitalism. Taking the Canadian breast cancer movement as a case study, Batt uses extensive interviews, scholarly resources, and her personal history to explore the struggles faced by patient advocates as they decide whether industry funding is necessary to keep their organizations afloat.
The eleven essays in Prozac as a Way of Life provide the groundwork for a philosophical discussion of the ethical and cultural dimensions of the popularity of SSRI antidepressants. Focusing on the increasing use of medication as a means of self-enhancement, contributors from the fields of psychiatry, psychology, bioethics, and the medical humanities address issues of identity enhancement, the elasticity of psychiatric diagnosis, and the aggressive marketing campaigns of pharmaceutical companies. They do not question the fact that these antidepressants can, in some cases, provide great benefit to alleviate real suffering. What they do question is the abundant popularity of these drugs and that popularity's relationship to American culture and ideas of selfhood.