The title of the article revealed that Alzheimer’s afflicts women more than men, both as victims and as caregivers. This alone is deserving of an article, as the title implied, but the article soon morphed into being about the economic costs of Alzheimer’s.
I don’t deny there are huge financial costs. There also are huge financial benefits, particularly for pharmaceuticals. I also don’t deny that moving a CEO to action in regards to anything requires an economic argument. Ah, but which CEOs of pharmaceuticals would view Alzheimer’s as an economic cost rather than an economic boon?
I am not implying that all pharmaceutical CEOs, or CEOs in general, would be utilitarian and heartless regarding the plight of Alzheimer’s. No, I expect them to be as human as the rest of us, equally devastated if a loved one of theirs is afflicted with the disease.
That is why I think the occasional morphing of important Alzheimer’s articles to focus on economic costs does more harm than good. If we cannot be moved by the human costs of Alzheimer’s, if instead the media must resort to economic costs to move us, we are not a society prepared to effectively tackle the problem.
