Rhetorical Analysis: Pharmaceutical Innovation

In Joel Lexchin’s article “Pharmaceutical innovation: Can we live forever? A commentary on Schnittker and Karandinos” he addresses the article made by Schnittker and Karandinos about the progression of pharmaceuticals and whether or not we have advanced enough to significantly increase our life expectancy. Lexchin uses a plethora of rhetoric to persuade the reader into believing his argument, mostly relying upon logos, chiefly facts, to appeal to the logical and sensible side of the readers. His argument is not limited to logos though, as there are faint traces of pathos, the longing to live forever, as well as ethos, society’s needs for further advances, to further convince the reader.

Lexchin talks a great deal about the amount of NMEs (new molecular entities) and the fact the while there has been a significant increase in the amount of NMEs, there are very few that actually impact mortality patterns. He uses a lot of statistics on percentages of new NMEs that “offered major therapeutic gains” or the amount of certain drugs released in particular countries. Lexchin uses this as a way to tell the reader that what is being done now just is not enough, there needs to be more done to affect the mortality rates. He also avoids mentioning exactly how much money is spent each year on pharmaceutical research and development. If the readers knew that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year and still so little, relatively speaking, has been accomplished, it would have a profound impact upon their opinion of the topic.

By comparing the life expectancy of women and men in 1960 to that of males and females in 2000, this data going from 73.1 for women and 66.6 for men to 79.5 and 74.1 respectively, Lexchin encourages the reader to believe that we can, in fact, decrease our mortality rates with pharmaceutical innovation. However it is very difficult to tell whether the increased life expectancy is actually due to NMEs or just a general higher standard of living and medical advances. By giving the reader actual numbers, such as that life expectancy at birth of Americans increased approximately 10% between 1960 and 1997, Lexchin is encouraging them to trust in his argument, because it is rational and valid. This is an extremely powerful tool, as when one sees numbers such as the ones previously stated, that look very logical, it is hard not to believe them.

Unconvinced that we really will “be saved by innovation”, Lexchin continues to describe the results of an experiment done involving the treatments of patients with similar underlying conditions by both Canada and the United States. The results of which, favoured Canada, which leads to some very difficult questions; if the US has considerably greater care units than Canada, as well as a higher NME approval rate, why is the life expectancy higher?

While throwing logic at us from every angle, Lexchin also manages to appeal to our deeper desires. He plays on humans yearning for eternal youth and immortality, as well as our fear of death. Immortality is a common goal of society and Lexchin uses is as a tool to get the reader to listen to his argument.

With a respectable argument against the idea of pharmaceutical advances eventually leading to immortality, Lexchin uses multiple forms of rhetoric, mostly logos, to sway the readers. He sets our deep fantasies of someday being able to live forever against our rational minds and backs up his case with sound logic and viable examples that leave us no doubts about human limitation. Overall, Lexchin uses very analytical and judicious arguments to persuade his readers into believing that while we can increase our life expectancy by a little bit, we should not hold our breath while waiting to live forever.

Bibliography

Grootendorst, Paul., Piérard, Emmanuelle., and Shim, Minsup. “Life-expectancy gains from pharmaceutical drugs: a critical appraisal of the literature.” Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 9, no. 4 (2009): 353-364. Guyatt, Gordon H., Devereaux P. J., Lexchin, Joel., Stone, Samuel B., Yalnizyan, Armine., Himmelstein, David.,Woolhandler, Steffie., et al.
“A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States.” Open Medicine 1, no. 1 (2007): e27. Lexchin, Joel. “Pharmaceutical innovation: Can we live forever? A commentary on

Schnittker and Karandinos.” Social Science & Medicine 70, no. 7 (2008): 972-973. The Active Reader: Strategies for academic reading and writing (2012): 396-399. Lichtenberg, Frank R. Sources of US longevity increase, 1960-1997. No. W8755. National Bureau of Economic Research: (2002). Mochrie, Morgan., Mochrie, Steve., and Mochrie, Clare. “Pharmaceutical Innovation: Can health and economic goals be met?” Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (July 2008): 1-9 Schnittker, J., & Karandinos, G. (2010). Methuselah’s Medicine: Pharmaceutical innovation and mortality in the United States, 1960-2000. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 961-968

[ 1 ]. J. Schnittker., & G. Karandinos. (2010). Methuselah’s Medicine: Pharmaceutical innovation and mortality in the United States, 1960-2000. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 961-968 [ 2 ]. Joel, Lexchin. “Pharmaceutical innovation: Can we live forever? A commentary on Schnittker and Karandinos.” Social Science & Medicine 70, no. 7 (2008): 972-973. The Active Reader: Strategies for academic reading and writing (2012):396-399. [ 3 ]. Ibid.

[ 4 ]. Morgan, Steve, and Clare Mochrie. “Pharmaceutical Innovation: Can health and economic goals be met?” Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (July 2008): 1-9 [ 5 ]. Lexchin. 972-973.

[ 6 ]. Paul Grootendorst,, Emmanuelle Piérard, and Minsup Shim. “Life-expectancy gains from pharmaceutical drugs: a critical appraisal of the literature.” Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 9, no. 4 (2009): 353-364. [ 7 ]. Frank R. Lichtenberg. Sources of US longevity increase, 1960-1997. No. W8755. National Bureau of Economic Research: (2002). [ 8 ]. Lexchin. 972-973.

[ 9 ]. Gordon H. Guyatt., P. J. Devereaux, Joel Lexchin, Samuel B. Stone,
Armine Yalnizyan, David Himmelstein, Steffie Woolhandler et al. “A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States.” Open Medicine 1, no. 1 (2007): e27. [ 10 ]. Lexchin. 972-973.