Not really (at least the way I interpreted it). PG seems to be saying that attacking the "final state" may not be the most productive approach here. Rather the

Not really (at least the way I interpreted it). PG seems to be saying that attacking the "final state" may not be the most productive approach here. Rather the discussion and consequent solutions should be focussed on the obviously bad factors that lead to this state (and his argument is that not all factors that lead to this outcome are bad - again you can disagree with that but the analogy in the article isn't appropriate because it focusses the discussion again on the outcome (the cancer)