The topic of the Party for Health Research is obviously a very good one. Everyone would benefit enormously from a faster development of effective medicine against age-related diseases. However, many people are still asking themselves the following three crucial questions, which will be examined more closely here:
- Isn't a vote for the Party for Health Research a wasted vote if the party has no realistic chance of clearing the 5 percent threshold for entering parliament?
- Aren't the major parties already doing enough for the development of effective medicine against age-related diseases?
- Is it even possible to develop effective medicine against all age-related diseases?
The first question can be answered with a clear "no". Since the Party for Health Research is a single-issue party, a vote for it shows the major parties how important the issue is. The more votes the party receives in the election, the more likely the major parties are to give the issue more attention, because they see that there are votes to be won with it. In addition, every single vote further motivates the volunteer activists of the Party for Health Research to keep going and supports public relations work and lobbying of the major parties for the issue. And there is now also a realistic chance that the Party for Health Research will receive enough votes in an election to qualify for state party funding. For this, it would need at least 0.5 percent of the votes in the federal election or the European election, or at least 1 percent of the votes in a state election. Additional money would of course help a great deal with public relations work and allow the party to make faster progress. Even without entering parliament, the Party for Health Research can accelerate the development of effective medicine against age-related diseases.
In today's situation, it is even the case that a vote for one of the major parties that are certain to enter parliament is wasted, since such a vote achieves practically nothing important. All possible governing coalitions will do more or less the same thing. Experience shows that it will make hardly any difference to the life of the individual citizen which of the possible government constellations comes about. This is also shown, for example, by the different governing coalitions in the federal states. And all parties that have a chance of being part of a governing coalition also want to do something about climate change. So there is no need to vote specifically for measures against climate change, since such measures are already fairly certain to come. And the frequently heard argument that you have to vote for CDU/CSU, SPD, GRÜNE, FDP or DIE LINKE so that the AfD does not gain so much influence does not hold either, since the AfD will certainly not get into government, even if you give your vote to a party that has no chance of clearing the 5 percent threshold. And the Party for Health Research has ruled out a coalition with the AfD.
The second question is whether the governing parties are not already investing enough in the development of effective medicine against age-related diseases. Every day, about 110,000 people die of age-related diseases, and with today's state of science we now have a good chance of developing effective medicine against all age-related diseases. This medicine would save many lives, prevent a great deal of suffering and would also be very advantageous economically. And of course the state is already investing in this area, but at present much less than 1 percent of the national budget. The Party for Health Research demands that an additional 10 percent of the national budget be invested in it. That would be more than a tenfold increase in this research funding. That is the big difference between the Party for Health Research and all other parties regarding this issue. At the current level of investment, we may have developed the medicine against all age-related diseases in 100 years. The Party for Health Research wants to accelerate the development considerably through substantially more state investment, so that we may have this medicine in as little as 20 years. Ultimately, it is a question of prioritization. How important is it to you to prevent 110,000 deaths per day and the immense suffering caused by age-related diseases? In addition to these ethical arguments, which should actually be sufficient, there are also the huge economic advantages for the country if it were to invest substantially more in this area. If, thanks to future medicine, old people are physically and mentally just as healthy as young adults, then, for example, the costs of illness and long-term care will also fall sharply. Moreover, everyone in the world will need this medicine in old age, so it will become one of the largest industries of the future. If the country invests more in this area now, it will be able to export knowledge and medicine in the future. And the whole population would benefit from an economically strong country. So, from an ethical and economic point of view, it would be very important to invest substantially more in this area than the current government does.
Let us now turn to the third question, whether it is even possible to develop medicine that cures and prevents all age-related diseases and lets everyone live healthily for longer. More and more scientists believe that this is probably possible and that it is only a matter of time until we have developed this medicine. There are already very promising approaches (such as the repair approach) that only need to be implemented. And there are more and more technologies that help with this implementation. However, most people do not seem to know about this yet, or do not believe in it, or simply push the topic aside. That is why public relations work is so important. And even if there is a small probability that we will not succeed in truly curing all age-related diseases, with more investment we could still almost certainly develop good new medicine faster that prevents a great deal of suffering. But even just a good chance of a world without age-related diseases should be worth the investment to us.
Although many people are in favor of more investment in the development of effective medicine against age-related diseases, hardly anyone is actively demanding it at the moment - there are, for example, no large demonstrations for it. With a vote for the Party for Health Research, you can now very easily help ensure that this issue receives more attention in addition to the other important issues of our time. If, thanks to future medicine, people in old age are physically and mentally just as healthy as young adults, average life expectancy will probably also rise sharply, since healthy people have a very low risk of death. Some people think that higher life expectancy could create problems such as overpopulation or pensions. But it cannot be a solution to keep letting people suffer from diseases such as Alzheimer's and cancer. Moreover, the Party for Health Research only wants to accelerate the development of this medicine. Any problems would therefore come anyway, just perhaps a few decades later. They would then have to be solved by later generations. And if people really lived substantially longer thanks to this medicine, the plans of the Party for Health Research would probably also help in the fight against climate change. It is often argued that older people tend not to care as much about climate change as younger people, since, given current life expectancy, they will no longer be affected themselves. However, if life expectancy rises sharply thanks to this future medicine, then, according to this thesis, many more older people would probably also care more about climate change, since they would then be affected by the consequences of climate change themselves.
The Party for Health Research is primarily concerned with health, that is, with extending the healthy lifespan. To this end, an additional 10 percent of the national budget is to be invested in the development of effective medicine against age-related diseases. Since no other party has this issue in its program to this extent, a vote for the Party for Health Research can still bring about a really important change, which a vote for a major party cannot.
Author: Felix Werth, Party for Health Research
