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 ] ]
|
