The drug development process does need looking at. Because right now it typically takes 4-5 years to bring a drug through the trial process, it costs a few hundred million. Chuck in the costs of the drugs that don't make it through, and pharma companies are left having to charge big bucks whilst their drug is on patent to recoup their costs and make a profit. As a result, we tend to get drugs that try and solve problems for large numbers of people, because they need a big market.
If that whole process could be made easier not only would costs be lower, but we might also get the personalised drugs that were promised when the genome was mapped.
It's a quirk of the system that a sizeable chunk of the nurses trained via UK universities don't end up working in the NHS, so large numbers are imported from abroad, many of whom aren't trained in the same way. Not to say they're awful, but they're often very different, be it due to their training or the culture they've come from. Many will get a couple of months of training and then be expected to be up to speed on the UK way of doing things, which isn't all that likely. Not ideal.
I'm very pro preventative healthcare, and it totally shocks me that hte medical industry look to prescribe instead of treating the route cause. You can nip onto a few cancer charity websites for example and see bugger all about certain cancers being preventable through lifestyle choices. Likewise you see auto immune diseases such as Rheumatoid arthritis being treated with prescription drugs, when taking out the route cause of the problem would give people improved quality of life far beyond pharmaceuticals ever will
I understand what you're saying about drugs, but the reality is the perfect drug doesn't cure anything. It simply makes it so that you have to come back for more; it makes you dependant on it.
If drugs were used properly I'd agree, but often life saving treatments are ignored because they're not a drug that's marketable or profitable.










