Re: [asa] health care

Jack:

I am wary of giving doctors more power in deciding medical care. It
seems that right now they have nearly de facto absolute power. The reason
for this is patient ignorance and complacency. Much of the rising costs
of medical care can, IMO, be attributed to consumer stupidity, at least
that's obliquely what everyone is claiming. I know that in my case that
such claims can be made, even though I stay away from doctors like the
plague. Moreover, many people do not trust "conventional" medicine
(witness the case in MN of forced chemotherapy for Hodgkins). They esp.
would be wary of giving doctors more power.

Frankly, I have no objection to people choosing whatever medical care they
want and can afford, no matter how stupid it might be. I'd rather err on
the side of individual choice than imposed choice.

bill

  On Fri, 25 Sep 2009,
Jack wrote:

> I want to emphasize my point that I think the decisions about allocation of health care needs to remain at the level of individual decisions between the patient and the doctor, not with the government. I am claiming that doctors should have more control over these decision than they have now. We (doctors) have given up too much to individualism, and need to reclaim some paternalism for the sake of decisions made in the communities best interest. There is a large grey area here, and there should be much debate about what is reasonable, and what is not, and who should decide. Nevertheless, in the big picture, who is in a better position to make these decisions?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Schwarzwald
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] health care
>
>
> I think the suggestion that the Christian commitment to "sanctity of life" adds up to "preserving every life to the maximum extent possible" simply doesn't wash. I know in the Catholic Church - which tends to talk about "sanctity of life" constantly, and is perceived to do so to an extreme - it's explicitly stated that "preserving every life to the maximum extent possible" or goals close to such is rejected as a moral obligation. "Extraordinary means" to prolong life are entirely optional rather than obligatory, and refusing such means on the grounds of burden to family or otherwise are acceptable.
>
> At the same time, there is a strong rejection of euthanasia - typically seen as an active killing, offering up drugs or "treatments" that are themselves designed to kill the recipient. For myself, that is a key area, and one of massive importance - the line between recognizing death as a natural, and inevitable, part of this human life, and regarding death as a desirable thing, a solution to a problem. Worse, an accounting problem.
>
> I also think in this debate far too much emphasis is placed on the role of government, when (as always) the major work required is at the level of the individual, culture, and community. "There is a problem, how should the government solve it?" often strikes me as a red herring - maybe the problem isn't one appropriate for government to solve. Maybe fewer problems than we think are.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 26 00:01:51 2009