A lot of scientists investigate different approaches to control over the pathologies and biological alterations that result in chronic and terminal diseases. Big efforts are dedicated to the prevention of environmental pollution and education how to leave harmful living habits in order to survive and live a healthy life. All these goals are very expensive and highly social energy consuming. Do we have to choose between fighting against death, and improving the quality of life?
Dear Maria, i.m.h.o. your question is a mix of two ones.
(1) The first approach is to understand the correlation between poverty (poor quality of life) and bad life expectancy (high mortality rates) in a particular social group: what drives what? How? How much? The answers would give us a good evidence for further actions. And for different societies and social groups these parameters could be unique (and, probably, radically different – who knows?).
(2)But there exists a political dimension as well. Politicians would ask totally other questions: should we concentrate on STI policy (medical/technical ways to extend peoples’ life, creation of new drugs, implants and whatever) or on social issues (elimination of poverty and inequality, special tax regimes, some new social allowances and so on)? What choice is the most convenient for our party’s ideology? What option would be more recognized and appreciated by our electorate in the short- and mid-term? What way of spending public money would be more accepted by the government?
So, maybe the optimal answer to your question (if it exists) should be somewhere between these poles..
I agree, the question has many aspects... And there is a trick here: the drug (I mean by drug a medication) industry needs customers... The wellness industry needs customers... In many healthcare branches the profit prevails the Hypocrites oath.
The life expectancy and all health parameters of many nations may be found in charts, in the website of the WHO. And it is clear - in the poor countries the morbidity and mortality are high, while the access to healthcare is scarce. The first aspect of your answer seems related to this group. And we have a small fraction of the humanity with good access to healthcare, where the questions related with morbidity and mortality rate have different meaning and dimension... It seems to me, the latter group might be effected of the second aspect of your answer more...
Dear Maria,
It seems, you are asking, which one between 'life' and 'healthy life' is more important. Only if 'life' exists, there can exist the question of 'healthy life'. So according to me, 'life' is more important than 'healthy life'. I may be wrong however!
I would replace the terms of the question in a logical order. If you are dead, you cannot enjoy any quality in life. So being alive is a priority. On the other hand, what about living a life which an individual feels not worth to be lived ? The two situations are different but not so distant each other.
For the link between poverty and life expectancy, it would be useful to look towards Amartya Sen's works and the Kerala exemple.
To fight against poor quality of life (averts or) to some extent the fight against death... POOR QOL brings all related issues leading to inevitable death.