Text size
One of the greatest challenges facing humanity in the coming decades is to heal the relationship between industrial civilization and the environment that sustains us. In the context of this larger healing, the role of healthcare needs to be transformed and enlarged. Not only do we need to heal individual patients, but also the surrounding environment and the communities that are served by health care delivery systems. Moreover, health care itself is a major industrial enterprise and suffers from all the same contradictions of a system powered by fossil fuels and toxic chemicals. It is a significant source of pollution and related public-health impacts.
We need to transform this disequilibrium at a scale that matches the social and ecological crises that we face. First, we need to educate health care professionals around the world to understand the importance environmental conditions in disease onset; second, we need to help the health care sector clean up its own house by reducing its environmental and public-health footprint; third, we need to utilize the enormous purchasing power of health care to drive markets and create stimulus for greener energy, greener chemicals, and safer products and technologies. And finally, we need to activate health care leaders to advocate for broader societal policies that are more protective of everyone on the planet and the ecosystems that sustain us.
This transformation will require more than just money (although it will require plenty of that). The United States spends more on health care than any nation on earth, yet its health statistics are worse than most industrialized countries and many developing countries. Its hospitals have the most advanced medical technologies, yet its citizens have the highest cancer rates. According to the American Cancer Society, one in three women will get cancer in her lifetime and almost one in two men. Among children under fourteen, cancer is the leading cause of death by illness. As a society, we have begun to accept high rates of cancer as a normal consequence of living in our industrialized economy.
There are other troubling signs as well: obesity now affects almost 90 million Americans, contributing $147 billion a year to the nation’s bulging health care budget. Learning disabilities impact one in six children and infertility impacts one in six couples. How can we explain this epidemic of diseases and health conditions in the richest country on earth?
Over the last 15 years, the science implicating environmental threats to health has become impossible to ignore. The evidence linking toxic chemical exposures to learning disabilities, cancer, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, endometriosis, infertility, and a host of other conditions gets stronger every day. The mounting drama of obesity-related diseases is increasingly understood as a consequence of a failed industrial food system and not just the result of poor individual food choices. And as the slow-motion crisis of climate change continues to unfold, we are learning that global warming will usher in an era of pandemics, infectious-disease migration, respiratory disease, heat-related deaths, and a tide of environmental refugees of biblical proportions. As Yogi Berra once said, “suddenly the environment is all around us.”
As long as we continue to ignore the environmental determinants of health, we will continue to medically intervene only after the onset of chronic disease. It’s as if we have designed an entire healthcare system to pull drowning people out of a river, rather than moving upstream to see why they are being thrown into the river in the first place. Seventy percent of all health expenditures in the United States are devoted to treating chronic disease; only 4% of the healthcare budget is focused on primary prevention. Meanwhile, children are being born with up to 100 toxic chemicals in their bodies, already poisoned before birth. Climate change continues unabated, amid scientific consensus that it will lead to millions of new asthma cases and a plague of other conditions. In the early years of the 21st century, we are learning that it is becoming increasingly difficult to support healthy people on a sick planet.
Is there evidence that a transformative program to detox our economy is even possible? When we started Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) 14 years ago, mercury thermometers were the gold standard in health care. Mercury is a toxic metal that escapes into the environment and never breaks down, poisoning the food chain and damaging the brains of developing children. Today, mercury thermometers have been replaced with safer alternatives in most US and European hospitals. Every major pharmacy chain has stopped selling them. We are confident that within the next decade mercury medical products will be phased out at a global scale.
When we first launched our campaign, there were over 4,200 medical-waste incinerators in the United States, making health care the biggest source of dioxin pollution in the country. Today, there are fewer than 80 incinerators left, while hospitals are reducing their waste streams, utilizing safer treatment technologies and saving money in the process.
Across the country and the world, architects are now building cancer centers without carcinogens and pediatric centers without chemicals linked to birth defects. Hundreds of hospitals in the United States and Europe are replacing the fast-food joints in their lobbies with farmers’ markets and hospital kitchens are buying local and sustainably produced food. Major hospital systems are committing to build and operate climate neutral facilities and install solar and other renewable energy systems onsite.
All over the world, there is a growing movement for environmentally responsible healthcare. Physicians are sounding the alarm about the urgency to address climate change in order to protect the health care of billions of people. Hospitals are aligning their food purchasing in urban food deserts to support local and sustainable food systems as a community wellness intervention. Together with nurses and health-affected groups, we are building the critical mass for a race to prevent cancer, rather than a race for a cure. There is a growing consensus that we need to defend the rights of children to be born toxic-free and the rights of women to protect the purity of their breast milk. These are fundamental human rights that we need to fight for if we are to have any chance of protecting future generations.
Over the last decade, HCWH has shown that the health care sector can be a catalytic force linking health issues with the greening of the economy. No other sector has the same standing to accomplish this linkage. With minimal resources, we have demonstrated that large-scale change is not only possible, but also cost effective and in alignment with health care’s core mission to do no harm.
We are entering an era of global triage, where we will struggle to provide basic health care to everyone on a planet in crisis. In this critical mission, we need to make environmentally responsible health care the global standard and create markets for safe and affordable medical technologies and products that address the basic needs of billions of people. We have shown that environmental protection, preventative health care and the greening of the economy can be powerfully linked to achieve all three objectives. It is now time to get to work and bring these solutions to scale.
Text size
Commenting is closed for this article.
Send an e-mail to let us know how we can make our site better.
Every ‚alternative’ medical system serves as a balancing purpose, yin/yang, sympathetic/ parasympathetic, physical/ emotional, active/ inactive
All systems mentioned by Apurv, do have an important role to play
But prevention is also achieved by meditation, massage, martial arts, etc
If someone is penalized for smoking, it would be also fair to give a bonus for any preventive activity
Posted 12 April 2010, 16:15 by Thomas Bauch
Please stop using the word “consensus” when writing or speaking about the science of climate change. There is no such thing and to keep saying that there is blows your credibility. If anything, the consensus currently is that the science behind the IPCC report was anything but science.
Posted 12 April 2010, 16:01 by Tom Laster
There are several Alternative Systems of Medicine followed around the world eg Yunani, Ayurvedic, Acupuncture, Acupressure, Homeopathy, etc. with amazing results. Perhaps, they have a solution for the seemingly intractable health problems in US.
Yoga and Pranayama can do wonders on the preventive side.
Posted 10 April 2010, 20:49 by Apurv Prasad
Gary,Well written. In spite of talking, it is important that the people in society are made aware of the social entrepreneurs. Maintaining equilibrium in the advanced world is important.
Environmental changes are a matter of global concern and it is important to tackle issues in the bud itself rather than procrastinating the matter when it start getting out of control.
Thanx for the article
Posted 10 April 2010, 00:21 by Suman Roy Choudhury
Perfectly said, Gary. Connections among environment, technology, food and medical industries, and health have been overlooked/ignored far too long. Raising consciousness by helping people to step back and look at the whole picture is what’s needed and must be repeated. You’ve done a great job of pulling it together here – thank you!
Posted 9 April 2010, 17:14 by Deb Moore
Social entrepreneurship is about trying to re-engineer the environment for the good of society. It tries to bring the creativity and drive of business to the pressing problems of the social, ecological, medical and political world we live in.
I agree that much of healthcare is about trying to rescue those who are ill rather than prevent the illness in the first place. Moreover, i think that we are fated to live in a world where acquisition and consumption are signs of success. This must be changed somehow, and healthcare can start by encouraging people to change not only their onw habits but the very shape of the environment they live in.
Health is a product of how a living being interacts with an environment: an unhealthy environment gives the individual a very slim chance of remaining healthy.
The environment I am particularly worried about is the psychological one. We seem to be uninterested in learning the things that make an individual content, the things that makes groups of people thrive. Fairness, closeness, family, celebration. These things need to re-enter our societies intensely.
We need more low-level social cohesion. More resistance to and rejection of shareholder-driven corporate action. Put it this way: we are already shareholders in our environment, and yet we seem to be absent to the idea that when our environment is toxic our driven by selfish principles, our shares plummet. They have been dropping year on year for at least a hundred years now, and we need to enrich our lives with simple measures like more family time, more community interest, and healthier diets. Now.
Posted 9 April 2010, 13:06 by Carl Mann
Of course, more money is not spent on prevention because that would deprive the sick-care industry (not healthcare industry) of their huge profits. Corporate food producers sell us processed, fake foods which make us sick. We then go to doctors who give us toxic drugs and/or radiation that make us more sick, and the cycle continues until we die. If we ate whole, organic local foods that kept us healthy then we would rarely seek medical treatment. Corporate food producers and our current sick-care industry would just wither and die…. which they should. Both industries are killing people on long-term installment plans.
Posted 9 April 2010, 12:36 by SAM
Interesting to learn that 70% of health care budget in USA was spent for chronic diseases and only 4% for prevention. Accordingly, higher budget will still face difficulties to change people to live healthier, but at least increasing the budget and setting up monitoring devices for the effectiveness of these initiatives will represent a good start.
How can we prevent history repeating in developing countries with smaller budgets for health care to wisely spend more with good preventive measurements? In huge geographical countries like Indonesia the infrastructure is a challenge to reach rural poor people with training for healthier lifestyles. My idea is to develop an Apotek/ Klinik Desa (AKD or Village Clinic and Pharmacy) in those areas supporting activities from available institutions with a ration of one AKD for 100,000 population. AKD with two academics from life sciences training poor population in rural areas with efficient monitoring devices is planned. Anyone supporting me with my compassion for this social change?
Posted 8 April 2010, 18:45 by Richard Husada
In a word…this is just excellent, the kind of thinking that will ultimately get planetary health out of the ditch.
Posted 8 April 2010, 11:12 by William W. Ellis
I applaud the efforts of HCWH and its partners in addressing the toxic environmental hazards that have had and continue to have such an adverse impact on the community and individuals. If we can only add a focus on poverty as well. I suspect that both environmental factors and lifestyle issues that area associated with the poor in the United States are creating a synergistic effect that is taking us in the wrong direction. If we can redirect some of the overhead costs/administrative expenses associated with our current delivery system toward creating healthier communities perhaps HCWH and its partners can have an even greater impact. Thanks for a thoughtful article!
Posted 8 April 2010, 11:01 by Linda Ollis