How A $4,000 Test Illustrates A Technological Divide
So there's a lot of talk about Angelina Jolie getting a double mastectomy because of a genetic test that discovered she has an 87 percent chance of developing breast cancer. Was this a courageous decision, as so many are portraying it? Perhaps.
Reasonable people can certainly respect her right to do what she thinks is necessary to protect her own health. Shame on all the Neanderthals making the "poor Brad" comments, as if women are nothing but sex objects for men.
Medical experts say that, after having the procedure, her chances of developing breast cancer have gone down to about 5 percent. But there's other issues at play here that aren't getting as much attention. The genetic test that Angelina Jolie had, which allowed her to protect her health, costs over $4,000. The reason for the high cost is that the gene that placed her at risk is patented by a company called Myriad Genetics, so it is only this one company offering the test.
Obviously, Angelina Jolie can afford a $4,000 medical test. But what of the women who can't? There are women in the United States for whom $4,000 would be one-fourth or one-third of their annual income. And we all know the statistics on how many Americans still lack health insurance. How much of the costs of these newly developed tests would even be covered by insurance is, of course, still to be determined.
Another story I listened to earlier illustrates the same issue. The story was about the increasing adoption of "tele-medicine" by doctors, particularly highly qualified specialists. Tele-conferencing with doctors has a lot of benefits, not the least of which is allowing more patients to have access to specialists who can help with their particular conditions, regardless of where the patient and the doctor are in the world. And people who have chronic conditions or otherwise require frequent medical care can become more mobile because they aren't restricted to living only where the doctors they need to see are located.
But as we rush headlong to adopting technological solutions, we should keep in mind that high-tech often excludes certain people, particularly those with lower levels of education or lower on the socio-economic ladder. I have encountered many seniors, for instance, who have a hard enough time with using email, let alone Skype or video-conferencing software. We can assume that seniors are a population who typically require access to good medical care.
Believe it or not, there are still people in the early 21st century who don't have access to the high-speed Internet connections that are needed to take advantage of things like tele-medicine. This can be for a variety of reason -- maybe they simply can't afford a home computer or they live in an area where high-speed Internet is unavailable, or they simply aren't comfortable with using technology.
For some things, those on the wrong side of the digital divide will still have access to lower-tech solutions -- for instance, seeing a doctor in person. But in a lot of other areas, society is moving at a rapid clip toward either using high-tech only. Even when lower-tech options remain available, there are often added fees to use them (the example of paper bank statements comes to mind). And it's important to remember that people who are limited to lower-tech options--for whatever reason--will often be limited in their choices as well.
The worst part is that those hit hardest by the digital divide will be people who are already living in poverty or facing other obstacles to being full participants in our high-tech society. So the digital divide will serve to reinforce the income inequality and other societal divisions that already exist.
As the 21st century marches on, we are certain to have more and more scientific and technological marvels available to us. These will be in finance, in medicine, in communications, and in nearly every other aspect of our lives. This is, all in all, a good thing. I am definitely not advocating that we slow down technological advances.
But in the social, economic, and political realms, we need to pay attention to issues of inequality and lack of access to scientific and technological advances. I want to see a society where these wonders of modern science benefit as much of humanity as possible, not just small wealthy elites.
Reasonable people can certainly respect her right to do what she thinks is necessary to protect her own health. Shame on all the Neanderthals making the "poor Brad" comments, as if women are nothing but sex objects for men.
Medical experts say that, after having the procedure, her chances of developing breast cancer have gone down to about 5 percent. But there's other issues at play here that aren't getting as much attention. The genetic test that Angelina Jolie had, which allowed her to protect her health, costs over $4,000. The reason for the high cost is that the gene that placed her at risk is patented by a company called Myriad Genetics, so it is only this one company offering the test.
Obviously, Angelina Jolie can afford a $4,000 medical test. But what of the women who can't? There are women in the United States for whom $4,000 would be one-fourth or one-third of their annual income. And we all know the statistics on how many Americans still lack health insurance. How much of the costs of these newly developed tests would even be covered by insurance is, of course, still to be determined.
Another story I listened to earlier illustrates the same issue. The story was about the increasing adoption of "tele-medicine" by doctors, particularly highly qualified specialists. Tele-conferencing with doctors has a lot of benefits, not the least of which is allowing more patients to have access to specialists who can help with their particular conditions, regardless of where the patient and the doctor are in the world. And people who have chronic conditions or otherwise require frequent medical care can become more mobile because they aren't restricted to living only where the doctors they need to see are located.
But as we rush headlong to adopting technological solutions, we should keep in mind that high-tech often excludes certain people, particularly those with lower levels of education or lower on the socio-economic ladder. I have encountered many seniors, for instance, who have a hard enough time with using email, let alone Skype or video-conferencing software. We can assume that seniors are a population who typically require access to good medical care.
Believe it or not, there are still people in the early 21st century who don't have access to the high-speed Internet connections that are needed to take advantage of things like tele-medicine. This can be for a variety of reason -- maybe they simply can't afford a home computer or they live in an area where high-speed Internet is unavailable, or they simply aren't comfortable with using technology.
For some things, those on the wrong side of the digital divide will still have access to lower-tech solutions -- for instance, seeing a doctor in person. But in a lot of other areas, society is moving at a rapid clip toward either using high-tech only. Even when lower-tech options remain available, there are often added fees to use them (the example of paper bank statements comes to mind). And it's important to remember that people who are limited to lower-tech options--for whatever reason--will often be limited in their choices as well.
The worst part is that those hit hardest by the digital divide will be people who are already living in poverty or facing other obstacles to being full participants in our high-tech society. So the digital divide will serve to reinforce the income inequality and other societal divisions that already exist.
As the 21st century marches on, we are certain to have more and more scientific and technological marvels available to us. These will be in finance, in medicine, in communications, and in nearly every other aspect of our lives. This is, all in all, a good thing. I am definitely not advocating that we slow down technological advances.
But in the social, economic, and political realms, we need to pay attention to issues of inequality and lack of access to scientific and technological advances. I want to see a society where these wonders of modern science benefit as much of humanity as possible, not just small wealthy elites.