A philosphical question bound to regress to name-calling and flames - page 6

Here's a discussion for you -- and bear in mind this does not reflect any particular personal belief: Does health care in general do any good for our species? By saving people from horrible... Read More

  1. by   BBFRN
    Originally posted by sjoe
    igflamini--you are making a very big mistake to drag Hitler into this discussion.

    Didn't he also sponsor and pay for many "medical experiments" on human beings "in the name of science and better medicine"? Experiments that created substantial suffering, as does much of the "treatment" we administer on critical care, surgical, ortho, etc. wards each and every day to "subjects" who don't have the physical and/or mental ability to refuse.

    Not to mention the simple fact that squandering our healthcare dollars and services in the ways that we do precludes providing basic healthcare for people who would otherwise live much longer and healthier lives, but who don't happen to have insurance or qualify under a given government program. (Let alone the rest of the 6 billion people on the planet.)

    and later "who is qualified to decide whose life is more valuable than another's? I know I'm not, nor do I want that kind of responsibility. When I'm treating a patient, their insurance (or lack thereof) is none of my business or concern. "

    and still later "Look at the Human Genome Project. It started out innocently enough, and now the Insurance companies are beginning to look into having people genetically tested to determine genetically precipitating factors in whether a person should be covered for certain illnesses."

    Not surprisingly, you will NEVER SEE the others, since they didn't make it through the door. These decisions are already being made, primarily based on economics. If you want to continue surrendering these choices to bean-counters, so be it. You don't like the way it is presently being done (by insurance companies, etc.) but you don't want to take any of the responsibility for doing it yourself. I, for one, am willing to take responsibility for helping to make them, when, as I said, I am the healthcare czar.

    Who said I agreed with experimenting on people who don't have a choice in the matter???? Who said I agreed with Hitler??? And who are the others that don't make it through the door? And I don't recall stating any OPINION on "how it is being done by ins. co.'s, etc. It was just a point to ponder on r/t research vs. ethics. On that note, as a nurse, I DO feel it is UNETHICAL to withold medical Tx due to socioeconomic status,age,etc. I guess I should make it my business to go through someone's insurance files the at work to make sure their life is "valuable" enough to do my job??? We treat a great number of indigent patients where I work. My stance on equal healthcare doesn't in any way infer that I think people should be guinea pigs! Where do you come up with some of this stuff???Just because I don't complain about paying taxes for things such as Medicare, doesn't mean I'm sticking my head in the sand and letting the bean-counters run my life. I choose my battles, and I'm sorry if I'm for equal healthcare, and since I pay taxes, too, I'm entitled to that opinion without getting flamed for it. And if you are as opposed to it as you sound, just what have you done about the bean-counters yourself? Are they not also making these choices for you as well? Or have you stopped paying taxes? Do you consider someone's socioeconomic status when you're treating them? Does it affect the manner in which you treat them? Not an accusation- just something to ponder.
  2. by   mattcastens
  3. by   hapeewendy
    yes matt you really are the devil aren't ya?
    hehehe ,baaaaaad baaaaaaaaaaad!
    just kidding
    I've enjoyed the thoughts and opinions on this one ...some more than others but still.....
  4. by   jevans
    Does health care in general do any good for our species? By saving people from horrible illness and poor lifestyle choices, are we encouraging a weaker human species by going against natural selection processes?

    Good Debate Yes wendy I agree Matt is certainly a

    In my humble opinion I truely became a nurse to improve quality of life for my patients

    When one introduces any healthcare measure should it not be


    PRO'S Vs CON'S = QUALITY OF LIFE


    Whilst science is involved in healthcare it is not the total sum.For example genetics may prove to be a useful tool for prediction but does it change incontinent patients or feed the person who is unable to manage independently or console a distraught family???

    What I am so poorly trying to say is there are sooo many aspects of healthcare Sould we attempt to debate it as a whole?


    As for Matt's comment about weakening the human species You what???

    There has been evidence that burr holes were used as far back as the year dot
    Are we weak now or do we have more headaches

    :roll :roll

    Have to say that I have really enjoyed reading the responses

    J
  5. by   sjoe
    igflamini--hopefully as you bridge your way to become an RN you'll have time to squeeze in a course in logic.
  6. by   rebelwaclause
    Originally posted by lgflamini@msn.c
    Do you consider someone's socioeconomic status when you're treating them? Does it affect the manner in which you treat them? Not an accusation- just something to ponder.
    I LOVE ya lgflamini@msn.com (you KNOW I do!)...But please allow me to ponder this a little further.....

    Hector is a 45 y/o mexican immigrant with a 30 year history of ETOH abuse. His liver is failing, and he could be a liver transplant candidate, if he commits to stop drinking and his case is approved. He has PLENTY of stressor's in his life, and he currently lives in a house he pays a mortgage on, located between A-OK Liquor Store and 7-Eleven. He has expressed no interest in rehabilitation, but still wants to "live" to see his eighth child get married someday. He is insured through an HMO.

    Luther, a 45 y/o African American has a similar story to Hector's. The only difference is he is a celebrity with $$$ out the wa-zoo. Though he lives in a gated Hollywood community, he still refuses to "give up the brew-sky"

    Should either of them get a new liver or should we consider their socio-economic factors before treating them?
  7. by   rebelwaclause
    Originally posted by sjoe
    igflamini--hopefully as you bridge your way to become an RN you'll have time to squeeze in a course in logic.
    Ooooo....Don't go there! A "class" DOES NOT make a logical person, just as much as becoming an RN doesn't either!

  8. by   LasVegasRN
  9. by   BBFRN
    Originally posted by sjoe
    igflamini--hopefully as you bridge your way to become an RN you'll have time to squeeze in a course in logic.
    ??? Sjoe, why do you say things like this? I have already taken a course in logic- I do have another degree. Why do you assume simply because I am presently an LPN that I am uneducated? That was an unnecessary comment. And BTW, wasn't it you who said on another BB that you were in favor of universal healthcare? And as someone in their 50's, are you planning on refusing Medicare should the need arise, based on your philosophies voiced here?
  10. by   BBFRN
    Originally posted by rebelwaclause


    Should either of them get a new liver or should we consider their socio-economic factors before treating them?
    I think I'm not really expressing what I'm trying to get across. I'm saying that as a NURSE, I don't make it my business to delve into someone's SES when I treat them. As a TAXPAYER, I don't have as much of a problem paying tax money toward indigent healthcare as I do for other things. Healthcare for prisoners- I DO have a problem with that. I have worked in a prison, and I know how it goes. But where I presently work, we have treated a great number of uninsured patients, etc. who are not obese, or aren't drug and ETOH abusers, smokers, etc. Maybe they got attacked in their home, or hit by an uninsured drunk driver. I have a hard time with anyone who can say that they think it is ethical to just forget about them. Yes, if they could be taken care of by the private sector, that would be great. But that's not the reality.
  11. by   gojack
    Of course healthcare does good for "our species". Bit first, you have to decide just what exactly healthcare is. And in its most basic form, it is nothing more than keeping a clean and wholesome environment for people to live in.

    With that being said, now we can see just how failed Western Healthcare is as a system. We don't have the best system in the universe, as many have been hooked into believing. Actually, we have a system that seems to breed cesspools across the planet, including most especailly within the US nursing homes and hospitals. There, the cesspools are created as oodles of resources are malconsumed. Often, half dead bodies are kept alive in ICUs, almost as cultures for the bugs that then escape into the world at large.

    The hospital insistence at throwing antibiotics at any and all problems, has created a situation that is melting down the ability to fight infectious disease across the world. The US hospital is the worst laboratory around, for creating horribly resistant bacteria and viruses.

    In short, the US healthcare system may actually now be doing more harm for"our species", than good. It certainly is the worst case (beyond the military) of humongous amounts of money actually buying so little actual benefit for people. Profit making has replaced science at the steering wheel of healthcare. And the future looks grim.
  12. by   simao pt
    We should help people to improve the quality of life, not just help them to breathe longer. Unfortunately, the temptation is sometimes too strong, when we have the means to make the person live just one more day, regardless of the pain we may cause them.

    But there're so many questions involved... who can say "i have the correct answer?"
    Last edit by simao pt on Dec 17, '02
  13. by   wolfox
    Responses to the orignal poster's query which address issues concerning quality of life at 85 or by quadraplegics are irrelvant to the question of whether this leads to a weakening of the species as these people are NOT REPRODUCING or are experiencing health issues which are not introducing "weak genes" into the gene pool.

    More at issue than patient with extreme conditions that we as nurses have cared for are OUR ROUTINE HEALTH CARE. If you wear glasses and have had children, it could be argued by some that you have weakened the gene pool by having children who would not see well. If you have your children immunized you are weakening the gene pool. Children who are healthy will survive mumps, measles and rubella, whereas puny children should be allowed to have natural selection do it's thing.

    Or so it goes for most animals. However, human being are unlike any other animals. We do not survive by our physical strength. What has given human beings an adaptive advantage over all other animals currently on the planet is our BEHAVIOUR. It is our societies...our culture and ability to adapt through what we do as a group that makes us so successful.

    As a social species who depends upon our ability to think and respond as society to environmental challenges rather than survive them physically we will quite naturally invent eyeglasses and immunizations and then try to see to it that everyone has access. Therefore, even though it permits "weak genes" to flourish when we immunize our weak sighted children, we aren't necessarily weakening the species. In fact we simply doing what makes us one of the most successful species ever-we are adapting to the environment through our behaviours as a social animal.

close