What does "society's failure" mean here?

[NewHopeR]

Context:

Society’s failure to protect a precious resource: antibiotics

Since their discovery last century, antibiotics have served society well by saving tens of millions of lives. Too many individuals—including illustrious composers and writers such as Schubert, Mahler, Mozart, and Wilde—died prematurely in the pre-antibiotic era from bacterial infections that are now treatable. Antibiotics are called miracle drugs because they kill bacteria, and thereby cure people of potentially fatal infectious diseases. Antibiotics are also unique drugs, because they act not only on the bacteria causing the infections, but also on a myriad of commensal bacteria, which can then disseminate widely, creating a reservoir of resistant organisms.

 

[5jj]

In the context you have provided, the title does not makes sense. I imagine the article goes on to suggest that we are not doing enough to protect antibiotics in some way.

ps. Unfortunately I cannot access the full Lancet article to check.

 

[emka]

Not a teacher and not a doctor either

Guessing from the current discussion about the use of antibiotics, I presume the article refers to an about-face in a small niche in medicine. There is a trend – not strong but noticeable - that doctors of a particular school of thought are rejecting the use of antibiotics holus bolus. It is a reaction to the indiscriminate overuse of antibiotics in the past, which has led to people becoming immune to these powerful drugs. Rejecting antibiotics altogether instead of using them less often and more selectively could be the idea behind this title.


In doing so, society would be failing to protect a precious resource (by throwing the baby out with the bath water ;-))

 

[5jj]

I like meeting new expressions. Today's is holus bolus.

 

[emka]

I thought it would fit in nicely with a medical topic because it sounds Latin although it isn’t, just like staphylococcus aureus, which isn’t either. :-D


(Does it sound Greek to you? – Just kidding, Mr. Teacher…;-) Both do have a Greek origin, though)

 

[JohnParis]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your post of yesterday entitled “what does retail mean here” contains text from the same article you have cited on this thread. ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Society’s failure to protect a precious resource: antibiotics, by Jean Carlet, Peter Collignon, Don Goldmann, et al.) This article was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]published as a Viewpoint Article in The Lancet (Lancet 2011; 378: 369–71). It was also [/FONT][FONT=&quot]published online, on April 7, 2011[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60401-7. Access to the full article is either by subscription to the journal or by single purchase.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am concerned about your 2 posts because you obviously have full access to the entire text of the article. The text from your question yesterday is on Page 369, column 2, lines 48 to 52 - well below the free snippet provided by a simple PubMed search. By reading the article, the meaning of the title is utterly evident. Did you read the full article before asking for help? Cherry-picking scientific articles can be a dangerous habit to get into, and I hope that you will not succumb to the temptation nor think that you will improve your language skills by doing so.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Emka's answer (N°3) is very perceptive and comes closest to answering your question.

[/FONT]

 

[NewHopeR]

[FONT=&quot]Your post of yesterday entitled “what does retail mean here” contains text from the same article you have cited on this thread. ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]Society’s failure to protect a precious resource: antibiotics, by Jean Carlet, Peter Collignon, Don Goldmann, et al.) This article was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]published as a Viewpoint Article in The Lancet (Lancet 2011; 378: 369–71). It was also [/FONT][FONT=&quot]published online, on April 7, 2011[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60401-7. Access to the full article is either by subscription to the journal or by single purchase.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am concerned about your 2 posts because you obviously have full access to the entire text of the article. The text from your question yesterday is on Page 369, column 2, lines 48 to 52 - well below the free snippet provided by a simple PubMed search. By reading the article, the meaning of the title is utterly evident. Did you read the full article before asking for help? Cherry-picking scientific articles can be a dangerous habit to get into, and I hope that you will not succumb to the temptation nor think that you will improve your language skills by doing so.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Emka's answer (N°3) is very perceptive and comes closest to answering your question.[/FONT]

Cherry-picking is a behavior I've always tried to avoid to keep away any possible confirmation bias.
I've read the full article twice before posting.
What I want to know is the nuance that dicts often fail to provide.

Here is the full text of the article (or the context):

[link removed]


The title makes sense, no doubt about that. So the discussion of the exact meaning of "society's failure" will and should be continued.

Thank you for joining.

 

[JohnParis]

You have violated copyright agreements by posting a PDF of the article.
Please remove it immediately.

Your English seems nearly impeccable. This is a forum for learners. Perhaps you have surpassed that level?

I'm sorry but I cannot let this pass.
The authors and the publisher of this article are entitled to compensation for their hard work. For you to post a PDF of their endeavors - for free - is just not acceptable. Perhaps to some, copying and disseminating the work of others for free is admissible - but not to me.

 

[5jj]

The title makes sense, no doubt about that.

It made sense to me.One does not have to be a medical expert to Understand the arguments the writers of that article are putting forward..

So the discussion of the exact meaning of "society's failure" will and should be continued.

I see no need. As JohnParis noted: [FONT=&quot] By reading the article, the meaning of the title is utterly evident. [/FONT]

 

[Tdol]

I think it's probably a legit site.

Here's the Whois entry:

Domain Name: thelancet.cn
ROID: 20040318s10001s00975297-cn
Domain Status: ok
Registrant ID: hc215874596-cn
Registrant Organization: 北京励德爱思唯尔科技有限公司
Registrant Name: 周安凯
...
Registration Date: 2004-03-18 12:01:36
Expiration Date: 2016-03-18 12:01:36

周安凯 is Beijing Science and Technology Co., Reed Elsevier, according to a Google Translate of this page: http://www.qiye.la/110101010046331
The email given for the registration is an Elsevier one.
The address in Singapore given here checks out: elsevier
The registration is long-term.

It is, however, strange that they allow access on this site and charge on the main site. If it is a clone site, it is a very clever one. I am a bit surprised that a company that big has failed to update the copyright message at the bottom of the page- it still says 2010. If they had a paywall in place, we wouldn't be able to see the article.

In answer to the question about society's failure, I don't see any nuance and the meaning seems plain- we're all to blame. They have been inappropriately and excessively prescribed, so that brings in the medical profession. They have been incorrectly taken- most people stop taking them when they feel better and ignore the warning about finishing the course, so that includes just about everybody. They are widely used in the retail food chain- a huge industry shovelling them down pigs' throats to increase their profit margins, urged on by consumers enjoying cheaper food. They've been treated as a magic pill instead of a finite resource. Who's to blame? Pretty much everyone involved in making, distributing and consuming them- and that's just about everyone. It's a failure and it's society's failure- we're all in this. And the solution, or partial solution, will involve changes in behaviour by all these groups, by society. I honestly see no nuance here. I think you could change the title to Everybody's failure or We're all guilty.

 

[Tdol]

You have violated copyright agreements by posting a PDF of the article.
Please remove it immediately.

Your English seems nearly impeccable. This is a forum for learners. Perhaps you have surpassed that level?

I'm sorry but I cannot let this pass.
The authors and the publisher of this article are entitled to compensation for their hard work. For you to post a PDF of their endeavors - for free - is just not acceptable. Perhaps to some, copying and disseminating the work of others for free is admissible - but not to me.

I am having second thoughts after looking further- the What's Hot links have this

http://thelancet.cn/dnn1201/hot_articloe/tabid/75/language/zh-CN/Default.aspx?CategoryId=847#850

Would such a big publisher really have a section called articloe?

I am going to pull the link to be on the safe side. The Whois email and the approach are different from thelancet.com. There's a lot of information to suggest it's real, but it's different from the Elsevier original site, so I will pull it for the moment as I have no wish to be contacted by their lawyers. It can go back if it can be shown clearly that the site is legitimate.

 

[NewHopeR]

Thank you for paying attention.
But relax. No copyright act has been violated here. The article is an open source for some reason that needs not to be mentioned here.
One clue, however, is what Tdol said there: we're all to blame (for antibiotic resistance). Because it is the society's failure. Thus obviously the article should be open -- anyone has access to it.
The site is the branch in China of Elsevier itself.
So on request, I'll post the link of the article here again. :-D

 

[5jj]

But relax. No copyright act has been violated here. The article is an open source for some reason that needs not to be mentioned here. [...]
So on request, I'll post the link of the article here again. :-D

I think the reason does need to be known before we can consider posting it here.

 

[NewHopeR]

I think the reason does need to be known before we can consider posting it here.

I think you've seen the best reason: Elsevier China itself has made it an open source.

 

[5jj]

Fortunately I am not in a position to make decisions here, but I think Tdol, post #11, is right.

Unless someone can produce incontrovertible evidence that the site is legally authorised to publish articles, then there seems to be little point in considering this further.,

 

[Tdol]

The article is an open source for some reason that needs not to be mentioned here.

I can't see any reason for hiding the reasons behind open source- open source is regarded as a positive thing. If it's open source, then the reasons are public. Everything about open source is open- if it's not open, it's not open source. When I looked at the site, I thought it looked genuine, but when I compared it to sites from the same company, I had real doubts. Please don't post links to it. Most people writing in this thread have read it anyway.

 

[NewHopeR]

I can't see any reason for hiding the reasons behind open source- open source is regarded as a positive thing. If it's open source, then the reasons are public. Everything about open source is open- if it's not open, it's not open source. When I looked at the site, I thought it looked genuine, but when I compared it to sites from the same company, I had real doubts. Please don't post links to it. Most people writing in this thread have read it anyway.

That's it.:lol:

The reasons are indeed public. Only they are in Chinese characters. :up:

 

[JohnParis]

Dear NewHopeR.
I owe you an apology and herewith tender it with sincere regrets.
You were right and I was wrong.
The following email arrived in my box just a few minutes go. The publisher does have a double standard. I have re-posted the article at the end of this message.

* Response Via Email(Marie-Louise Klein) - 11/10/2011 02.48 PM

Dear Sir

Thank you for your e-mail.

I can confirm that the homepage makes certain articles available for free.
This is always subject to change, therefore I would advise you to download the article whilst possible.

Should you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards
Marie-Louise Klein
Elsevier Customer Service
EMEA
Tel: +44 (0) 1865 84 34 34

Did you know? You can visit our customer support website and view our
Frequently Asked Questions at http://support.elsevier.com

http://thelancet.cn/dnn1201/lancetcncampaignarticle.pdf