You are right, F. Leon Wilson, I did bring up a lot of issues in a very
small space.      So it will also be hard to respond to so many
responses in
so short of a space.    Let me try.

It is not cruel to advocate that the majority of care be in prevention
instead of "treatment".       The human body is like the human
environment.      You cannot allow it to be mistreated, and allow it to
be destroyed, and then hope to somehow have a miracle done to repair the
mess that has been made.

The reality is..... that our class based society already has the
government making the decisions.      And they have decided to throw
away the health of the majority of the population.      Let's change
that rather than postulate that an effort to redirect the direction of
how care is given, might somehow then lead to government making health
care decisions for us (and against us).       The government already
does decide for you (and against you), and the corporations and their
government have decided that your health is unimportant.        Could it
be worse?

The best thing we can do for the elderly, is to take care of them while
young.    The best thing we can do for the sick,  is to keep them from
getting sick in the first place.     Truisms, right?       Then why are
they ignored?     That is the inhumanity of capitalist medicine.

Now, to answer a few questions.      Is the person that is in
non-retractable pain, or hopelessly ill, the best person to decide his
own care?      YES, if not them, who else?

If a person's health has significantly declined, should that person be
allowed to die?       YES, how is anyone going to prevent it?     A
doctor and the hospital system can make it long, cruel, and drawn
out...... PLUS expensive.    And they will make a lot of money off that
route rather than the shorter.

Because we as a society allowed the corporate elites to make society so
dangerous, many of us will suffer long cruel drawn-out conditions for
years, if not decades.        It is medical care not to allow this to
happen.      And we're not receiving it.     We get pills, tests,
procedures, platitudes, and misery instead.

<Explain the payment system and how it favors big business.>

Books have been written on this subject.       Originally churches took
health care out of the house and concentrated it into the hospital
system.       But this extreme concentration of delivery has been taken
over by the corporate system, and has been concentrated down much
further.      The military also played a role in concentrating the care
of patients together, as there was no family to assist in care on the
battlefields.

Now, care is run by insurance systems and banks.      There are lower
tiers of direction from manufacturers of pills and equipment, real
estate companies, etc.
Next comes the government, and last trails along the AMA.

Think of health care as a black hole.     The capitalist medical system
draws everything along its way, and yet somehow gives off no light, and
cannot be seen!

Here's a few reality bits to deal with.

I have seen patients with incurable cancer tortured for months with
impossible treatments for total price.....?       Yesterday, I took my
daughter to the doctor and we have no insurance.       Will she suffer
hearing losss because I delayed a week in doing this?      Is this the
part of the price in treating the cancer patient?

Should we treat burn patients or gunshot patients that were trying to
commit suicide?       I think not.      It was already too late to begin
treatment.       They don't want to live anymore.       Can we ethically
force treatment on individuals against their will?    Dr. Whoever has
decided that these patients are depressed, therefore he will now
takeover care?       I'd rather not be part of the "treatment team" at
this point.       Where were we before, Dr. Whoever?

As for the final question.....    I have not advocated at all that the
elderly should be excluded or treated in a lesser manner.     I would
concentrate on removing them out of the concentration camps,  and fed
and given water.

Tony Abdo












   (F. Leon Wilson) Date: Sat, Mar 18, 2000, 9:53am (CST+1) To:
[log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Misuse of
Antibiotics (ATB) in Agriculture Reply to:
[log in to unmask] (The philosophy, work & influences of Noam
Chomsky)

On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Tony Abdo wrote:
In this article put on line at...Common Dreams, note the assertion by
the Ag-industry that the principle misuse of ATB comes from within the
hospitals, and not from the misuse of ATB in agriculture. This is
probably correct, so what then lies behind this misuse of ATB within the
hospitals?
It has to do with a medical system driven by profit motives, that
latches on to giving "treatment" to patients that are already dying or
that have had their health significantly destroyed.

Tony:
What are you saying here?
If someone is dyuing, then all/any measuress should not be used?
If a person's health has significantly declined, should that person be
allowed to die?

A system that delivers the majority of treatment that individuals
receive in their lifetime, all within the last year or two of life.

Is this because the person has elected not to receive regular medical
attention?
On the other hand, could it be that the expense of regular medical
attention could be cost prohibitive?

In order to keep these people alive (often against their own wishes),
doctors have to literally swim patients in a sea of antibiotics in the
Cancer wards, ICUs, and even within the general medical units.

And the problem is . . .
Is a person gravely ill and in pain the "best" person to decide whether
they should continue to receive medical treatment or live?

It is not humanity that drives this setup, but rather a payment system
that has slowly been pieced together through the years, to favor the big
business operators in the health care industry.

Help me whith your logic.
Should "humanity" drive "this setup?"
What setup is that?
Explain this "payment system" and why it is in "favor" of big business.
Please give an example.
Who or what should control who lives, dies or receive medical attention?

The solution is to simply reverse the majority balance of the flow of
funding to the other end of life (children and young adults), and to
eliminate or restrict processes in society that cause early disease in
life.

So you are advocating allowing "older people" to die or receive lesser
medical attention?
What age is the cut off age?
Why does the young (children and young adults) have more value than the
the older more experienced person.
A society should be judged by the manner in which they treat the people
who needs the most assistance. What you are advocating appears cruel in
my judgment.

There is nothing wrong with a government that assumes its responsibility
to regulate away hazards, as much as possible, though capitalist society
will clamor that this is limiting individual freedoms.

Who is to judge what is a "hazard?"
Is pornography on the Internet a "hazard" that should be regulated away?
Should the desire of an individual or family to keep alive a older
person be controlled by a government for the good of . . .
But the current problem is, that the evolution to resistent forms of
bacteria is almost as difficult a problem to reverse, as the extinction
of species is, or to reverse the the global warming that has occurred.
It is easier to destroy the environment than it is to repair it.

Tony:
You have mixed too many issues.
I have missed your central theme and subsequently your point(s).
What works against any solution, is that the population is still in
general awe of the witchdoctors that push, and are wedded, to the "high
tech".     That, and the lack of any real public health care policy
that could override Ag-business interests, in the name of public health
and national security.

Tony Abdo
How did you come to this conclusion?
Public health care should exclude or treat the elderly in a lesser
manner?
                                [
      [       TEXT CUT       ]       ]