The Editor, Sir:
Ian McDonald's article in Sunday's newspaper entitled, 'Dance of the elephants', criticising the unbridled acceptance of the ideology of the free market while neglecting considerations relating to the public good was very timely and right on the mark.
He laments that "there has never ever been so much disposable cash as there is today, yet there is ridiculously little disposable cash for the public good".
In Jamaica, we have seemingly embraced without question this 'law of the jungle' ideology which triumphs individualism, selfish gain and self-centeredness in which improving one's 'bottom line' is what matters most. All this while there is a general decline in our public institutions, such as those serving the health and education of our populace.
We live in a society where $14-million Range Rovers abound on our streets while nurses and teachers remain grossly underpaid.
Developers advertise homes going at half a million US dollars each which are oversubscribed even before going to press, while our health services continue to languish for lack of funds.
Financial institutions continue to post billion-dollar profits, while the communities from which their customers originate do not even have the facilities for their children to play.
"Systems, not men"
Last year at Scotiabank Foun-dation's annual lecture at the Jamaica Pegasus hotel, Jeb Bush, brother of United States President George W. Bush, extolled the virtues of a well educated populace in today's market-driven economy and compared the latter to a situation in which "a rising tide floats all boats".
By this, he meant that in a free market economy everyone should ultimately benefit. I remember thinking, this sounds nice in theory, but in practice does not happen.
The free market, to be of benefit to everyone, will depend on the intervention of "systems, not men", to use a term coined by Eddie Seaga.
As the free market is based on self-interest, these systems must be imposed from outside the organisation/individual as it would be naive to expect that the interest of the community in which an entity operates would be paramount. These systems (separate from taxation) would ensure that companies and individuals have a social conscience policy compatible with the needs of the communities in which they operate.
Let me give pertinent examples from my sphere of work. Some years ago, I invited a pharmaceutical 'giant' which operates here in Jamaica to help subsidise the cost of sending two urology trainees to a Harvard course in Boston on urologic cancer.
Attending this course would have been of immense benefit to the trainees and, by extension, to the Jamaican patients whom they serve. The company in question carried a drug here in Jamaica used in the treatment of prostate cancer that, at the time (pre-NHF), cost approximately J$40,000 per dose. We had many patients on this drug.
To my amazement, this profitable multinational company declined to heed the call for help, despite the fact that the proceeds from the sale of just one prescription could have paid for the airfare of both residents.
Disappointing response
More recently, faced with the UHWI's lack of funds to purchase badly-needed equipment required for the basic running of a urology unit (where conditions such as prostate cancer and kidney stones are treated), we decided to enter the arena of fundraising.
Multinational and national corporate entities were approached and their response was disappointing.
Many of these companies had executives who, if they sneezed, it seemed, would be on a plane to Miami for medical consultation and, therefore, had no vested interest in improving the quality of Jamaica's health service.
I am convinced that the free market needs to be tempered with a good dose of imposed social conscience for everyone to benefit in some way. Perhaps we could take a leaf out of Castro's book!
I am, etc.,
WILLIAM AIKEN (Dr)
uroplum23@yahoo.com
Lecturer in surgery, UWI
