Al Gore has famously -- or, if your world view differs, infamously -- made personal investments in companies advancing the "green economy" agenda for which he has long been an ardent champion. This has prompted some to levy charges of conflicted interest against him -- to contend that he is, in fact, espousing such causes as green energy for personal gain.
But such charges resonate with truth only in a parallel universe (impervious, presumably, to human-induced climate change) where effects precede causes. Because it is a matter of public record that Gore was advocating for a green economy long before he made any such investments; long before, in fact, there were many relevant companies in which to make such investments. He applied his mouth to the issue long before his money.
And then ... he put his money where his mouth was. He practiced what he was preaching.
Aren't we supposed to do just that?
I strive to make my own health promotion efforts fully in the public domain whenever possible. Much of what I do is freely available to all, and provides no profit for me, or anyone involved.
But there are times when the only expedient way to advance the mission is via public/private, academic/business partnerships. And then, inevitably, there is money in play.
But in our still-capitalistic-last-time-I-checked society, is it, in fact, a "conflict" to become personally and financially involved in the very things we are telling people they should become personally and financially involved in? Isn't doing otherwise a failure to practice what we preach, hinting at hypocrisy?
There are, to be sure, many opportunities for true conflicts of interest in the world of business; and the entire domain of opportunity is rife with slippery slopes. But as long as honest means are applied to honorable ends, where is the conflict? Are we opposed to doing well by doing good? If so, I never got that memo. If one invests personally in a cause one has long championed, does it not make one's interests more confluent?
The issue comes up often as a tacit debate among academics about degrees of purity. So I thought this was grist deserving of the kind of diligent milling only the Huffington Post can provide!
What do you think: conflict, or confluence of interests for mouths and money, practice and preaching to align in health promotion, as in other endeavors? I look forward to comments.
-fin
Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org
Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
IF you so truly believe it's the BEST as a medical/health program, then spend your own money to provide it free past the point where you are out of pocket. That way you'll support the productprogram you believe is BEST, and I'll have real reason to hope if not quite believe you're not just another moneygrubbing slimebag. Not that YOU would ever be of course. (Your even asking this question IS a GOOD SIGN!)
I think there are clearly problems with both approaches under various circumstances. It would be difficult to place much confidence in a personal trainer that didn't appear fit and healthy. On the other hand, the corruption that is all too common when power over outcomes is combined with personal gain makes a powerful argument for keeping such things separate.
At any rate, it's an issue worth taking a long serious look at to determine if our policies are in line with reality and with how we want our society run.
http://exerciseandnutritiontips.com
I think that's the tricky part. Whenever something becomes popular...the money makers want a piece of the action. I think that is where things go wrong. It goes from "how can we help?" to "what can we sell?"
In 2004, frustrated and frankly disgusted by the Ottawa's predatory commercial weight loss industry, I decided to do better and founded an inter-disciplinary behavioural weight management program. My patients enjoy 6 months of unlimited one-on-one consultation (and a minimum of 5 hours) with RDs who work with them on balanced deficit diets with nutritional guidance from Willett's Healthy Eating Pyramid. Patients enjoy 6 months of thrice weekly fitness classes led by personal trainers, and also spend 3 hour with trainers one-on-one to work on the design of home programs, or the sleuthing of enjoyable functional activities. Patients see medical doctors every 2 weeks for behavioural counseling. Nutritional supplements aren't sold. No one particular "diet" is prescribed. We deliver these services as a cost less than half of the hospital's gruesome all liquid diet program, and we offer a follow up year long maintenance program that still includes unlimited one-on-one attention for less than the cost of a latte a day at Starbucks.
All that said, some certainly look down their noses at my venture. Why? Because as you said, physicians apparently aren't supposed to be financially involved.
What rich hypocrisy. Every physician I know is a business unto themselves where they're selling their services to their patients.
I'm damn proud of the services we provide, and had we not made a formal business out of it, I would never have had the resources to provide them.