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

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

What seemed like extraordinary measures yesterday are routine today.

At one time, any type of surgery was extraordinary.

If an attempt to treat is combined with a desire for knowledge, we move forward. If we don't treat, we can't learn. If we only want to move forward, we lose our humanity (as in concentration camp "research").

Question is, can the patient accept the price (money, pain, inconvenience) of the treatment? Do they want it? If they have the resources and the desire, I feel obliged to recommend treatment.

Was this a flame? It didn't feel like it as I wrote it, sometimes I'm told otherwise.

Just curious.

I just have to say that technology and ethics unfortunately don't always move in the same direction, and although I have enjoyed reading many of the ideas shared here, the only opinion I choose to render is about age. My Mom is 86, bowls on 2 leagues, reads a couple of books a week, and is bright and continues to give to society. IMHO society is better for her presence.

Specializes in Home Health.

I loved what VickyRN said, and agree with all of it, and I also like Karosnow's thoughts very much and agree with them.

I wouls like to add my comments on health care being better for the rich, oh yes it is!!

Take Christopher Reevs for example. Do you think your or I would have the same opportunities for such amazing physical therapy, and research studies, and being in on the best new meds?? Not in a million years.

When I was 22 and worked in a med/surg ICU, frequently taking care of quads after C1-2 transection, I decided I would NEVER want to be in their shoes...DNR.

But then I had children, and the thought of not being able to see them grow up ripped me up, and I decided even if I had to be Christopher Reeves in my WC at their soccer games, I wanted to be there for them.

Now I have changed my mind again. I have seen them grow into fine young people, they still need lots of nuturing and guidance, but somehow if I died tomorrow, I would feel like they would be OK. And the LAST thing I would want now is to be such a burden, like Mr Reeves, by having to have family wipe my ass. What kind of a life is that to leave to your children? I wonder now how could I have ever had such selfish thoughts to want to stay alive like that.

Many would argue Mr Reeves life is productive, etc... I just do NOT see it that way, and wouldn't choose that for MYSELF at all. I don't fault him for his choices, but I would not want it for me.

I guess it all depends on where you are in your maturity and if you are able to make a conscieous decision for yourself. What about the 22 yr old who is in a vegetative state, when their parents die, who is going to care for them??

I do not belive we can say over age X nothing further can be done. But I do believe that uneccesaary interventions should not be done, even if someone wants it, say if a pt is filled w CA, they should NOT be resusitated and should be offered excellent pain management. Cardiac surgery on people w cardiomyopathy shoud not be done just so a hospital can make money. Treatment must be necessary, curative, and ethical. Those who don't fall into that category need access to palliative measures.

In cases like Mr Reeves where he would die if resus is not attempted, and the extent of the damage isn't known at the scene, that is a hard call. Once treatment is established, pulling the plug is another story, that is like playing God, but not allowing unecessary Rx to start at alll, like not even intubating someone w terminal CA, that is where we maybe need to start.

I don't know if this made sense. Maybe I have even contradicted myself, these are just my rambling thoughts on the subject.

Specializes in Corrections, Psych, Med-Surg.

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"? (Some of this data, by the way, was found to be medically useful by the allies after the war ended.) These were experiments that often 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.

Hoolahan--your thoughts made good sense to me, and I have no problem at all with Superman going through whatever he wants to go through, so long as HE is paying for it (which is the case), not the rest of us. I certainly wouldn't choose to live that way, whether I could pay for it or not, but just as certainly I wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it, regardless..

Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
Quote
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.

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?

Good Debate :cool: Yes wendy I agree Matt is certainly a :devil:

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

Have to say that I have really enjoyed reading the responses

Quote
Originally posted by [email protected]

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.

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?

Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
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.

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.

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?"

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.

Interesting. Only one true flame, I think. Telling someone to take a logic class is a cheap shot, I believe. It usually indicates a poster unable to argue the logic.

As per Christopher Reeves - I'm not him, I don't know what choice I would make. I also don't know how his family feels. They are the only ones who can say if he is a burden to them. I believe he has spent his own money for his care - he has also spent money for research in spinal cord injuries - both cure and rehab. His injury - and what he has done as a result of it - has helped many others.

I worked in a research pedi oncology ward, world renowned. We almost never saw newly diagnosed ALL there. Why? Maybe ten years before, they had done enough research so that kids with ALL could be treated close to home, for less money. Most of the kids we saw had very bad cancer, they were on research protocols. You know what they, or their parents, said? "I don't know if this will help me/my child. It might help another child, though. That's why I do it." Yes, chemo was torture. But, the kids and the parents were willing to endure it - if not for themselves, for others.

Yes, "medical research" was done in concentration camps. Generally, it is considered worthless because it was done so poorly. Unlike the children I talked about, the research subjects were not informed, nor had they consented.

I doubt even our medical care is powerful enough to weaken our species. Sometimes it helps.

As to livers: when there is a limitted supply, the logical solution is to use it where it has the best chance of succeeding. So neither of those mentioned would get a liver in a logical setting. However, money can buy, there are unethical physicians, hospitals, organizations, etc. I worked in a prison. They don't give livers there. They wouldn't even treat Hep C. Or give Hep A or Hep B immunizations. The last was pretty illogical, I thought. Cause they had to treat them if they got Hep A or Hep B.

Just a few opinions. Hopefully supported. In a debate one attempts to support one's opinions.

+ Join the Discussion