Comments on: Richard Smith asks: Can the rich save the world?

By: Gary Rimmer

Gary Rimmer — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:46:07 +0000

I am not a professor. My comments are just my personal opinion.

By: Richard Smith

Richard Smith — Sat, 30 May 2009 11:42:06 +0000

I must agree with Professor Rimmer that the debate was in many ways a poor one, and I suspect that Richard Horton thought so too–which is why he referred to the debate as simply a beginning. Both of the speakers went over their time (always a bad thing), and both are probably better writers than speakers. Then the comments from the audience were random and often uninformed and ideologically driven.

I chose to play down the deficiencies of the debate and concentrate on the energy in the room, which was considerable. The challenge to Professor Rimmer is to raise the quality of the debate. He should also read the material in the Lancet where he will find much of what he found missing in the debate.

By: Matt James

Matt James — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:59:43 +0000

I have just returned from Delhi, which as most realise is a stark example of a wealth divide and how an sudden influx of wealth and the ability to gain wealth, brings out the worst in people. The majority of the Indian new money does not care if his fellow man lives in abject poverty and dies in the same street he was born. To quote, “that’s just the way it is”. We British would seem just as heartless to a man whose country would not allow anyone to suffer living homeless because he has a mental illness which nobody cares to acknowledge.

I cannot help but think that people like Bill Gates (BG) do not actively go out to rape and pillage the world, but just go about their daily routine being extremely good at what they do. To some this seems ruthless and autocratic to meet the end goal which BG sees as paramount. But I think it’s all relative. We could all do much more for the world, starting at the street level where we actively avoid chuggers (charity-muggers) and beggars alike. At least at the end of the day BG and his corporation have some kind of positive impact which would not be there if his billions stayed put in his account.

So should the question be more focussed on what we can all do rather than pointing out the inadequacies of those few who, when scrutinised, fail to meet the standards which we, the relatively poor set for them. In the same way, we should expect the average `man of the street` may point a similarly shabby finger at us as well.

How much of this issue has been escalated due to the world financial crisis? Was it bubbling under the surface and brought to the fore by the discontent of those with dwindling shares, looking for the highest flying scapegoat? We have all known BG was accumulating a vast and wealthy empire for years, but for those who rode the wave of gain and prosperity it was accepted mainly applauded. Could this be the same reaction as the large scale blame which was seen in the Great Depression?

My feeling is that if the masses kept their own philantropic houses in check there would be no need to have this kind of debate. The enormous lump sum, headline donations of BG and the like would be unwarranted. The majority of the wealth is with the majority of the people no matter how rich the ones at the top of the pile are.

By: Gary Rimmer

Gary Rimmer — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:23:07 +0000

Not sure I was at the debate described above: I found it rudimentary, flabby and unfocussed. The time might have been better spent quizzing the audience of interested parties, as clearly it was, for quotable accounts of their experiences of TGF. One late contribution on cronyism was particularly telling. But did this event start a ball rolling? Maybe, just.

By: Tracey Perez Koehlmoos

Tracey Perez Koehlmoos — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:52:29 +0000

Thank you for relaying the events of what sounds like an exciting and essential event to those of us who are fighting on the front lines in the war on poverty and disease. You discription makes the tension palpable even from Bangladesh.

The potential further fracturing of already weak health systems is a risk that is taken any time a new intervention or new focus is introduced to the sector, particularly on a large scale.

Some of the greatest minds in public health and demography now work in Seattle–and scan the world seeking innovative solutions to the problems of the poor and offering support to those who will deal with those issues face-to-face, every day. The Foundation has the resources and the supra-governmental ability to be a unifying force on specific big ticket issues in public health, such as coordinating the global effort to scale up zinc as a treatment for childhood diarrhea. The national scale up of zinc in Bangladesh was visionary in aim and scope–and without the contributions of the Gates Foundation and the tireless leadership on the ground of Dr. Charles Larson would NEVER have been possible. It represents the best of trasnlating basic science into action on the grand scale. Such efforts are expensive and the Foundation has been a fantastic partner.

Richard Horton is right that a shift away from health systems strengthening activities in favor of investment in technological innovation is worrisome. The development of a new treatment or a new device–even the greatest innovation is nothing if the thirsty man cannot get a drink or if the baby is sick because existing technologies are not being properly deployed or utilized. Strengthening health systems must be a consideration in all public health related programmes or projects, it must be a tenet of corporate or donor social responsibility.

Thank you Richard for the event coverage. I do not know if the Internet will be fast enough in Dhaka to listen first hand to the RSA transmission–so thank you for keeping the rest of us informed. Are you a crypto? Hmmm…