Does health care in general do any good for our species?

Nurses General Nursing Nursing Q/A

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?

Discuss at will. :D

It's also a matter of location: a lot of time really good care can be found for those without insurance, but usually that's in larger towns and cities where for obvious reasons there will be a larger population of uninsured. I'm not sure where you are at Kristy, but I know in several of the smaller towns I've lived in there were no free clinics or anything of that sort either.

Vegas--that's a scary freakin' thought. We could just erase something (a trait etc) that had occured for a reason....:eek: Never even thought of that angle...Yet another reason why there's some shyt we just shouldn't mess with. :stone

Specializes in Corrections, Psych, Med-Surg.

Kristy--you forgot the one and only population in the US which the US Supreme Court says is legally entitled to health care--those in custody (jails, prisons, and elsewhere so long as it is against their will).

Your tax dollars at work.

Yes, I'm glad I pay taxes so that the local prisoners can have cable TV and 24 hr nursing care. They should be required to pay premiums just like we do...stamp out a couple thousand license plates for a checkup?

I live in the boonies in central WI. We have a lot of farm families that have no insurance d/t the govt's crappy milk pricing. We pay up the wazoo for our insurance, and it sucks. Right now, I'm sitting on over 2 grand in bills. Sure hope they like 50 bucks a month for the rest of my life! Can't wait to get done with school so that I can afford some decent health insurance. I hate being poor but too rich to get Badgercare.

I have been lucky to live in cities with large enough populations that the poor generally get something. Sadly, the health department with the great staff and best care stopped offering sliding scale with the start of Healthy Kids. Most parents signed up for private docs, now get the same rushed, no need to take your clothes off care.

Low cost places tend to get people who are doing health care for a reason other than money.

As to prisons, I worked in one for a while, it is a dilemna. However, state takes responsibility for maintaining person for however long, must provide basic health care. And that is all they provide. Yes, better than outside. In Florida, they charge four dollars a visit. Note, when one inmate said, "Well, while I'm here you might as well take care of my messed up hand." How long messed up, I asked? Oh, years. Well another year won't make a difference, forget it. Diabetes, htn, time makes a difference, have to treat.

They aren't coddled. But anyone who thinks they are and would like to be themselves - not too difficult to commit a crime. Having seen how they coddle them in Florida, I'm more law abiding than ever.

I do believe health care is a right. Donmurray is correct is adding education to that list also. These things are fundamental.

We should do all we can possible do to save someones life. It does not necessarily follow that we should do all we can to prolong someones life.

I was disturbed by an article I read on this board along the line that a certain state would like to bring charges against the caregivers of nursing home residents that die, and that all these unfortunate beings should be autopsied after the coroner is called in. If I was so far advanced with some type of dementia that I could not/would not eat I think shoving an NG tube into my face and force feeding me would be cruel and absurd. And if this did for some reason oddly enough happens to me or mine, I would like to believe the individuals inflicting this upon me were doing so in some (misguided) attempt to help me and not because the government compels them to do so, fearing prosecution.

I have no objection to my tax dollars assisting incarcerated miscreants,pregnant teens or HIV+ illegal aliens. I much prefer that to helping McDonalds Corp. advertise hamburgers in Minsk

Specializes in Gerontological, cardiac, med-surg, peds.

I personally am very grateful for the system of health care that we all enjoy, whether in Canada, Europe, or the U.S. We are VERY FORTUNATE compared to the rest of the world. If you are poor and needy, say, in someplace like India, and suffer a fracture.... well, you just suffer with it for the rest of your life. In the continent of Africa, 1 in 16 women die needlessly from childbirth complications. A huge percentage of babies die before their first birthday. Life expectency in these countries is very low (age 35-40). I would venture to say that every one of us reading this post without exception, owe our lives to some sort of health care intervention at a desperate point in our lives, without which we not be here at this moment reading this thread!!!! I remember when I was deathly ill from anaphylactic shock and required emergency intervention. Probably wouldn't have made it without those "simple" timely interventions. Also remember when I was pregnant and suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum. My baby and I probably wouldn't have survived the pregnancy, had I not received timely medical intervention.

We are blessed, incredibly blessed. I view myself as a nurse as an extension of God's hands of healing in this earth. All of us share this "ministry." The poor, the weak, the "least of these" among us, deserve compassionate care. This is a basic human right.

That said, as a former ICU nurse, I witnessed the other side of the coin--unspeakable atrocities being perpetrated in the name of "health care." Sure, we saved many lives and for this I am SOOO grateful. I also saw elderly nursing-home-type patients (FULL CODE) with absolutely no quality of life (some in a vegetative state) being kept alive, enduring horrendous torments on the ventilator, multiple drips, painful procedures, etc. etc, only to die slow, painful, torturous deaths. This is so wrong.

I would never want to be kept alive if my quality of life were that poor. I also believe the wishes of the patient in that situation should be respected, and if the patient is incompacitated, then the family should have free reign to make an informed decision. (Notice, I said, INFORMED DECISION--a lot of family members don't have a clue as to what "FULL CODE" really means and the busy doctors don't take time to educate.) We are facing a crisis right now in our family. My 76-year old father-in-law suffered a massive right-sided ischemic stroke and is totally flaccid and without sensation on his entire left side--very poor prognosis. The stroke is extending and he is non-responsive. We were QUICK to make him a DNR as we love him very much and he would not want to be kept alive under these circumstances. We told his doctor--NO HEROICS-- keep him comfortable, and let him die with dignity :o :sniff: :scrying:

"Good for our species"? Let me point out that all these old folks have already passed on their genes. How is prolonging their lives harmful to the species?

Quote

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?

I have discussed this with many nurses over the years. I work with children who have genetic, induced, and other disorders. When I worked at the hospital, we would take the children on our floor after NICU transfered them. When a FLK came up we sometimes wondered "WHY?" is this child being saved. What possible quality could come for this life? After many years of reflection and study, my views have changed a bit. I still sometimes wonder why but now realize that there is a reason for every life. Sure we save some and we lose some but is it really OUR power? Probably not IMO.

We, as a medical profession are not encouraging a weaker human species when we save a MVA and adult other patients who will need extensive therapy. Saving those lives has nothing to do with a weakened human species. Saving the life of a newborn with a severe genetic disorder perhaps does in that if they have children, they will pass on the genetic makeup for the disorder thus increasing the number of people who will carry the gene.

In researching genetic disorders; In general, genetic disorders occur in children when both partners carry the genetic makeup for the disorder. I have found that sexually speaking we pick partners who are "like" ourselves, Through history we trace our ancestors back and can find deaths and info regaurding newborn deaths, but the genes live on, and now more newborns live instead of die, but it really doesn't matter b/c the gene lives on anyway and is passed to other children and so on. In looking at society in general, there seems to be a shift in the natural selection process for life partners, especially amoung the young generations, people are no longer choosing partners who a like themselves, but choosing partners who are very different. The more diverse the genetic makeup of a couple who are having a child, the less chance of them both having the same genetic makeup and carrying a gene that causes the disorders.

My thought is that the human population will continue to survive and will continue to strenthen as the gene disorders are diluted through a naturally occuring instinct in the human race for survival. The only involvement that the medical field plays in assisting with this whole situation is that perhaps we have hastened the diversity and strengthening of the human race.

Specializes in CV-ICU.

Matt, I've never really thought about it this way before (weakening the species and fighting natural selection,etc.).

I HAVE often thought how we seem to be playing God at times when we prolong death instead of saving lives....

Health care is not on the level of species, IMHO. Science has helped our species with stuff like small pox vaccines and penicillin. Since all people on earth are not considered in any health care system, a species perspective can not be considered. You know what I mean :-)

Quote

My goodness, what a great question! I'm going to have to think on this one for a while.

Actually, the first thing that comes to mind (for me), is the thought that healthcare isn't really a right. It's a need and necessity - But not a right. If you are speaking in terms of "Everyone has a right to healthcare", then yes, this is a true statement. In a general term like this...sure.

Interesting, I caught an old episode of Hopkins 24/7. There was an MD who was really upset that an MRI he had ordered for a patient of his had to go through an authorization process before being approved. The Dr stated that his patients prognosis would have been better, had she been given the diagnostic earlier, but since it was delayed because of "waiting for a high-school secretary to approve the MRI", her treatment was expanded.

What the MD didn't explain, was that the patient's medical plan was actually covered through her fathers employer (the patient was a young girl, teen-aged). What was further not explained is that companies go into bargaining about what benefits they want included for their employees and what they don't want to pay additional within the employer-health insurance contract. Something as basic as a MRI should be covered without a doubt, especially if ordered by a specialist with back up history included with the diagnostic request. But often times a delay in authorizing a request for treatment comes from PRIMARY CARE doctor's not following specific guidelines that are in place by the insurance company. Some insurance companies want a SPECIALIST to consult with the patient and primary care MD for a more accurate plan of care (Not thinking of an MRI, but more elaborate tests of diagnostic value).

And who makes these guidelines? A PEER doctor who is the medical director over the insurance company. Most guidelines and protocols aren't just born immediately. The guideline was consulted by many MD's - Argued, drafted, changed, revised, redone, revised again and finally passed by the MD Medical Director AND a group of board elected MD peers. The "High-school diploma secretary" was only doing her job by approving a request for authorization based on guidelines or forwarding it on for Medical Director review - Who is the only person who can deny a request for authorization. (In California at least).

And don't get me started on the secretary at the MD's office who didn't fill out the authorization request correctly in the first place. If vital information is missing from the initiating MD's office...This will delay an authorization request, PERIOD. And they tell patients "Oh..your insurance company hasn't approved it yet - They are being lazy or just don't want to approve it". WRONG! What that nice little secretary DIDN'T say was that "I didn't include a reason for the request, I didn't check to see if this is something I even NEEDED authorization for and I didn't return the insurance company telephone call to explain what the hell I even wrote, because who can read my handwriting anyway?

Grrrrrrr.....I haven't even started on infertility benefits. Should an employer be held financially responsible to get someone preggers? I've been yelled at because someone thought infertility is cheap and free. Hmmm......

Is healthcare suppose to cover everything? Should employers pay for a "everything included" benefit contract? Should patients ever have to pay anything?

Grrrrr.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Well, I just checked in with this thread for the first time in several days and I must say I'm bitterly disappointed there's been no name-calling or flaming yet. Geeze. Promises, promises. :o ;)

+ Add a Comment