Talk:Medical–industrial complex

??

"builds from the social precedent of discussion on that concept".  Someone is trying too hard to sound intelligent.  What the heck does this mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C001:7708:7193:278:AAA5:6CBF (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC) 

Pain management

The last sentence is basically content-less. Conditions for providing X are always going to be determined by the economic system. People have to eat; things have to be paid for. There will always be questions about how to arrange those economics in the best way and whatever those arrangements are, somebody is going to be screwed. At least until we enter some era of limitless resources.

Is pain managed better or worse in places where the MIS is present than where it is not? " better" measured how? Doctor training, what medications are available, how many people have access to pain medication they can afford, how many people's pain is managed well? How does concern and law in one place vs another about diversion and people getting addicted play into that? How much of that has to do with developed world/undeveloped economies generally?

The same kind of issues apply to almost everything in that section. Medicine like every human activity always happens and is determined by the broader economic system in which it is done. And again, in the RW of limited resources, somebody is always going to be screwed, regardless of the economic system. I really struggle with criticism of X not grounded in actual (not fantasy) alternatives. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog "Market conditions for providing pain management services are influenced significantly by the medical-industrial complex" I put that statement there as a vehicle for presenting a paper which I had not read but which had an interesting title. It was not my intent to attempt to convey any particular position. I am glad that it provoked you to comment. Feel free to read the paper. Should we leave it here until it provokes someone else?

This is a junky article. I like that it is here but it could be improved in lots of ways. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible improvements

There are many ways for this article to improve. The last significant change in this page was in 2016 and it is likely that new resources have surfaced regarding this theory. The characteristics section needs to be drastically changed and the description on the theory is very broad. There are so many references to articles that almost defeats the purpose of visiting this page. I hope to work on this page further and describe this complex more in-depth. I have referenced it on my personal talk page as well. CatherineGCC (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

As an update, I have talked about improvements to this article further on my talk page. Simply put, I want to expand this article to include a more in-depth description of the definition, descriptive Characteristics section, and add sections on the Medical-Industrial Complex in other countries, and the connections with the economy, political sphere, healthcare as an industry, and society. CatherineGCC (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Title Change

I plan to improve this article in the near future but I am having difficulty finding resources that evaluate the MI Complex outside of the United States. I suggest that the title be changed to "Medical-Industrial Complex in the United States." If you would like more details regarding what I plan to change, please refer to my user page.

CatherineGCC (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This is certainly not limited to the United States. Other places would be Canada, Latin America, the UK, countries in Europe Bquast (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Changing Article

Hi all, I am beginning to work on this article for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course. I have begun editing in my sandbox, which is available for all to see if you would like to view my work. I plan to expand the article to be more descriptive of the MI complex in the United States. I am also adding sections on healthcare corporations and their influence, continuing medical education, bias in education, and the patient and physician-level consequences. I am also adding a section that references laws and policies that were adopted with the Medical-Industrial Complex in mind. More work will be done in my sandbox.

CatherineGCC (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

seem to be well thought out ideas for the article, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Regrettably, no further edits have been made, and the article still has the identified issues. Closing as unsuccessful.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1970's Dalkon Shield IUD is one of the first examples of the dangers of the medical–industrial complex? Source: Kolata G. The sad legacy of the Dalkon Shield. New York Times, Dec 6, 1987
  • ALT1: ... that the medical–industrial complex creates chain healthcare and drug inflation? Source: Wohl, Stanley. The Medical Industrial Complex / Stanley Wohl. First edition. New York: Harmony Book, 1984: 85-98
  • ALT2: ... that chain hospitals can inflate health care costs with the goal to increase profit? Source: Wohl, Stanley. The Medical Industrial Complex / Stanley Wohl. First edition. New York: Harmony Book, 1984: 85-98
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by CatherineGCC (talk). Self-nominated at 21:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - The sentence The Medical-Industrial Complex is intertwined with the workings of the United States's near-fully privatized healthcare industry is not sourced.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - Of the three hooks, ALT2 appears to be most interesting. None of the hooks contain a link to the article itself.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article contains several issues with the MOS, but that does not preclude DYK eligibility. The most important problem here is the hook; none of the three hooks contain the required bolded link to the article. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This is my first DYK review, someone else should take a look at both the article and my review. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@CatherineGCC: The first two hooks now have links, but the problem with the unsourced sentence has not been fixed. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• citations should be footnotes Instructions are at Help:Footnotes. It should take not more than 2 minutes to figure out. If there is a problem, ask at WP:TEAHOUSE or here.
• unsourced content Simply delete all sentences which are not matched to citations. There are lots of claims in this article without fact-checking, and if something is going to main page, it needs the usual quality control process. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Dudhhr and Bluerasberry: The nominator hasn't edited since November. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Let's close for now. Nominator can re-nominate after responding. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Dudhhr and Bluerasberry: Were the changes by the nominator at the start of November not sufficient for DYK approval? Sdrqaz (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I was negligent in checking. I was just watching this page. In special:diff/1118408910/1123341976 I see that the user addressed my two concerns about improper citations or lack of citations. They did good! I approve for what I checked. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• The overall tone of this article reads like an exposé, and thus fails WP:NPOV. Some sentences are blatantly non-neutral. The one that really stands out is This shows the dangerous background of the MI Complex and prioritizing profit over the safety and wellbeing of patients. CatherineGCC please don't take this personally, but I see you wrote on the talk page, "Hi all, I am beginning to work on this article for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course". Well, unfortunately, it reads like a position paper written for a Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course. Which is great as a class assignment, but not so great as an encyclopedia article. I also see that you're a new editor here. That's great. No, it's wonderful. We need new talent working on the project. But please understand that neutrality is one of our core principles. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• Given that the nom appears to have left wikipedia and the extensive amount of work that would be required to make this read neutrally, I'm marking this with a DYKno and suggest it be closed as rejected. I'll ping the nom on their talk page to make sure they're aware of the issues. It looks like this is a class project for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Rice University/Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities, Section 1 (Fall 2022), so ping @DStrassmann and Ian (Wiki Ed): as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • RoySmith, I notice that the nominator has been active in the past week, communicating on the article talk page and editing the lede of the article. Does it seem possible that the article might progress to the point that it would be sufficiently neutral, or do you still think the only thing is to close it? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for reviewing this page. I will encourage the student to return and respond to your comments. Typically students are juggling several courses at once, and get extremely busy once exams begin. I hope she will return. DStrassmann (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you so much for leaving suggestions on this article. I appreciate the feedback and hope to develop the article further. Thank you for taking the time to review my nomination. CatherineGCC (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for the expansion. I find the statement "The Medical-Industrial Complex is intertwined with the workings of the United States's near-fully privatized healthcare industry." perhaps a bit to pointed (oups, wrong guideline, should've probably linked WP:NPOV here) and it is definitely analysis (which would require a footnote). Maybe the article can instead state that most of the discussion surrounding "The Medical-Industrial Complex" has considered the US health care system, or that it is considered a prime example of a "Medical-Industrial Complex" in the litterature? Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I added some work on that. Thank you CatherineGCC (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view

Most of this article is written from a decidedly non-neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). I'm going to cite a few specific examples here, but I need to emphasize that just fixing the specific ones mentioned here is not a fix; the message that the subject of the article is evil permeates the entire text and cannot be fixed with just a few edits here or there to problematic sentences.

• This shows the dangerous background of the MI Complex and prioritizing profit over the safety and wellbeing of patients. This is the most blatant example, and sums up the overall tone of the article as a position paper.

• Pharmaceutical companies are a leading influence in the expansion of the Medical-Industrial Complex. That overstates what the source says. The source concludes, "Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias." That's a long way from the quoted statement in our article.

• Chain hospitals and other healthcare conglomerates hold a monopoly over health care costs within their hospitals and respective subsidiaries. That's cited to a paper which studied the healthcare industry in one specific country (Slovakia) and doesn't come anywhere near making the quoted statement which is presented in wikipedia voice. The next sentence uses the phrase "cut corners"; I don't have access to the source, but I'd be astounded if it used that specific phrase.

• New treatments are often labelled as "low-cost," as opposed to clearly giving the average cost of an exam or drug to a patient. I can't find anywhere in the cited source which says that. The term "low-cost" is quoted, which implies it's a direct quote from the source. I can't find that, or anything similar.

Overall, this needs a major rewrite to comply with our neutrality requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving these suggestions. I appreciate the feedback and hope to work on this article further. CatherineGCC (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Rhetoric of Health and Wellness

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jemeyer1211, Bhs3234, Iamkyletso (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jv686.

— Assignment last updated by Jv686 (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Article Change

Hi all, my two colleagues and I plan to make improvements and edits to this article. Our intentions are to improve subtexts within the “Consequences” section where we plan to add up to date information about the Medical Industrial Complex and its role in COVID-19. We also intend to add content within the “In other countries” section. There, we plan to add content about the Medical Industrial Complex and its role in India, United Kingdom, Canada and other countries as well.@Iamkyletso @Bhs3234 Jemeyer1211 (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race, Gender, and Medicine

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 30 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annamirly, Suh2, Ginsar08 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gek21, Flamerune567, Samhivellala.

— Assignment last updated by Liliput000 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the Medical Industrial Complex Page

Hi Everyone! As a project for our class, “Race, Gender, and Medicine” in the Women and Gender Studies and Disability Studies departments at Georgetown University, we wanted to add to this Medical Industrial Complex page. Our main goals are to:

• Adapt the “term” section to become an “Origin” section
  • Add more history about the origin of the MIC term
• Add in Mia Mingus’ MIC map and explanation about her many components of the map
  • Link to article: Medical Industrial Complex Visual | Leaving Evidence
• Adding a history section about the use of the MIC over the years and its impacts
  • “Science” and systems of oppression
    • Looking at race science and scientific racism pages
  • The complex nature of cure and the MIC in disability fields
• Adding a “cultural criticisms” section with the lived impacts of the MIC
  • Resistance, alternative approaches
• Improving the See Also
  • Linking this page to eugenics pages and other disability pages
• Adding more pictures and working to improve the neutrality of the page with many new sources

Please let us know if you have any issues with our ideas, or any requests for us! We look forward to building off of your work working together with all of you to help this page progress from its S class status.  

We also wanted to mention that, although we do not have time to do so, we think that this page could greatly benefit from the addition of more countries in the international section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suh2 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Best,

Samika, Ginny, and Anna Suh2 (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I like this game plan because it acknowledges that the mission is to describe the concept of MIC and provide relevant context, also you're aware of the neutrality issues. A lot of the current article text is written "in-universe" i.e. as if the concept of MIC is true. The encyclopedia should take a disinterested approach to any concept, with the aim to reflect the prevailing interpretation neutrally (as well as any notable dissents). Draken Bowser (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone!

We just wanted to share that we have made the aforementioned updates to the page!

Thank you specifically to Draken Bowser for your input. Please let us know if you have any feedback for us.

Thank you!

Samika, Ginny, and Anna Suh2 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, I think the article has been much improved.

I had to remove a section on Mia Mingus that was sourced to her blog. A difference between academic writing and wikipedia-writing is that we have to use sources that argue the relative importance of something if we want to include it (when writing academic essays we're allowed to make that judgement ourselves). So we'd have to use a source independent of Mingus to substantiate that she's a prominent scholar in the MIC-sphere whose views belong in an encyclopedia article on MIC. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)