Keith Hudson wrote:
[snip]We now know that
> treatments for an ever expanding list of disease and handicap is growing
> far faster than can be afforded. How medical treatment is rationed from now
> onwards is becoming a very serious issue, particularly in the modern
> political climate when everybody thinks they have a "right" to the latest
> and best possible treatment for their particular complaint, no matter how
> expensive this may be.)
[snip]
Wouldn't the solution here be to deal with the problem nearer to its
source, and channel research policy into areas where
cost reduction and general improvement of public
health would be the likely result, instead of the
invention of ever more ever-more-unaffordable Gee-Whiz
heroic interventions that help at best a few?
Nobody had to invent an artificial heart, and stopping
production of trans-fatty food to
ward off heart trouble, and publicizing the
virtues of masturbation as a preventive for AIDs
doesn't seem like it would cost a lot of money either.
We need epidemiological "flying boats", not
medical Charles Lindberghs. If a treatment
has not been invented, then it cannot become a
rationing problem. Since there are far more
problems to be solved than researchers to solve them,
this does not seem to entail denying scientists
the right to work on "really challenging" problems.
The latest thing seems to be transplanting parts of
healthy livers and lungs from one living person
to another.
Now, when one uses the metaphor about some oppressive
social situation "extracting a pound of flesh",
that need no longer be a metaphor. The
opportunities for the innocent being tortured
have expanded immensely. Ethics, far
from fading away, is getting new opportunities to
corrode joy of life.
Student: Happy the land that breeds a hero.
Galileo: No. Unhappy the land that needs a hero.
Happy the [???] patient who can find a perfect tissue
type match for a transplant operation.
Unhappy the healthy person who gets to undergo
major surgery to gain the loss of
part of one of his or her vital organs.
"Selfishness" takes on new nuances, when a
person who is afraid of medical interventions
(such as myself) must hope that his tissue does not
match anybody's so that he will not be
faced by the question from an abusive
parent: "Are you going to be
such as selfish little sh-t as not go give me
a lung after all I've done for you?" Or from
some less personal institution: "You mean you
are going to let some person die unnecessarily
because you are afraid of a little
discomfort so we can take your lung? You
really ought to be ashamed of yourself!"
And, since I don't like to have my blood
drawn: "You mean you won't even take a
little pin prick for the good of humanity?"
And when will a law get passed making it a
felony, punishable by forcible harvesting
of the desired organ, to not voluntarily
give when asked (and to say "Thank you, authorities.")?
Perhaps there is a law of nature somewhere to the
effect of:
The conservation of torment.
Looking ahead but not "forward to"....
+\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
