Hi All: Seems to me that, lost in all of this is the simple fact that treating the socio-economic-health symptoms is more profitable than curing the disease. Even more of a profitable no brainer is to take a peek at prevention. I suppose we really cannot afford that. Regards Ed G In Canada, due to the rapidly increasing cost of drugs, there is a big push on for "Pharmacare". that is the state will take over the payment for drugs. A simple question. Who will benefit? Since the increasing impoverishment of the masses precludes their choosing to,pay for food rahter than drugs, the state taking over the payment cannot but seem attractive. However, the "Third Way" and "globalization" means that corporations are no longer subject to reasonable taxation. Someone has to pay for the drugs. so the healthy working poor, who cannot avoid the tax, will end up paying for the drugs for the unhealthy, unemployed poor. Progress anyone? Regards Ed G At 07:11 AM 01/07/2001 -0400, you wrote: >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/ > >
