Does a Doctor treat an Illness, or the Patient?

[iambatman]

So, as competent Pre-Meds, which is it?

And what are your views on socialized medicine? What are the Positives? What are the negatives?

Does President Bush's Health Care Policy adapt well, as to how Physicians and other Health Care officials can 'best' manage Health Care?

As competent Pre-Meds, what is your view on euthenasia? What about the Death Penalty?

If a patient needed treatment, but couldn't afford health care, what would you do?

These are just some questions that you better know how to answer, so I'd love to read responses.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[63768]

doctor cares for the patient, treats the illness.

i don't like socialized medicine because i don't feel it solves any of our current problems and will create new ones. i also am not very learned on this subject so my opinion is a myopic one.

ditto on bush.

euthanasia is permissible in cases where the patient requests it and/or they are terminally ill and are suffering more than drugs can compensate for.

no money, no treatment.

and why do you keep calling us competent premeds as opposed to future doctors or something similar?

 

[Flopotomist]

doctor cares for the patient, treats the illness.

i don't like socialized medicine because i don't feel it solves any of our current problems and will create new ones. i also am not very learned on this subject so my opinion is a myopic one.

ditto on bush.

euthanasia is permissible in cases where the patient requests it and/or they are terminally ill and are suffering more than drugs can compensate for.

no money, no treatment.

and why do you keep calling us competent premeds as opposed to future doctors or something similar?

Wow, glad to know that there are people out there with answers exactly opposite to all of mine lol.

(I hope the word Bush doesn't come up in an interview, lest I actually say what I think about him.)

 

[thegenius]

Do you have a test you are studying for? Are all these questions part of some questionnaire that you need to answer?

 

[Chris127]

So, as competent Pre-Meds, which is it?

And what are your views on socialized medicine? What are the Positives? What are the negatives?

Does President Bush's Health Care Policy adapt well, as to how Physicians and other Health Care officials can 'best' manage Health Care?

As competent Pre-Meds, what is your view on euthenasia? What about the Death Penalty?

If a patient needed treatment, but couldn't afford health care, what would you do?

These are just some questions that you better know how to answer, so I'd love to read responses.

You opened up the wrong door my friend......

 

[iambatman]

Do you have a test you are studying for? Are all these questions part of some questionnaire that you need to answer?

As future doctors, you don't think that you will be taking a leadership role in the community? You don't think you should be able to answer these simple questions?

 

[iambatman]

You opened up the wrong door my friend......

are you a pre-med student? if you are, then this is NOT the wrong door. you all should have opinions on these subject matters.

 

[Rendar5]

I know that the avg life expectancy in cuba is almost equal to ours, and the avg cost per person is $197 a year. Here it's about 10x that amount. Course, we wait til we're really sick to get treatment and don't do much prevention here (not necessarily the doctors fault). Course, socialized medicine also has some real drawbacks, at least from what i've seen w/ some european neighbors. I'm prolly still quite myopic about it too.

As for euthanasia. I found out at a recent lecture (pain medicine lecture, part of my neurology course) about Thomas Aquinas allowing for a double treatment effect, which is the basis for legal euthanasia to some extent in NY. If there is a positive and a negative effect for a treatment, and the patient is aware of both, you are allowed to use the treatment w/ the patient's permission, even if the negative effect is worse than the positive effect. So in the case of a terminal patient in their late 70s, severe abdominal pain, on a ventilator, DNR orders, but resuscitated 5 times already (he was ready to die, but didn't want to die feeling like he was drowning). The pain doc was legally allowed to give him a huge cocktail of atropine, morphine, and some other drugs even though the likely effect of that would be death. Allowed because it would relieve his pain and pulmonary edema. Patient and his family liked this option. So he was given the drugs, taken off the vent, was able to say goodbye to his family, and drifted off to sleep and then death.

I support euthanasia to a slightly more extent than this, but would still severely limit its use to terminal cases (and I prefer the DNR choice when the patient is likely to die soon anyway, but its up to the patient).

 

[thegenius]

As future doctors, you don't think that you will be taking a leadership role in the community? You don't think you should be able to answer these simple questions?

First, your approach lacks style. It's not so much that you asked these questions, but you shot them out of a rifle without context. Asking a question like "What are your views on Socialized Medicine" is so generic and un-insightful that is seems peculiar. You can Yahoo! that phrase and get 10,000 answers to that.

 

[Rendar5]

are you a pre-med student? if you are, then this is NOT the wrong door. you all should have opinions on these subject matters.

If you're pre-med, then u shouldn't have huge opinions on all this because there's still a lot u don't know. Better to have informed opinions than uninformed ones, I think. Still a good thing to think about though, and there I agree with you.

 

[MattD]

As a future dentist, a number of those questions are relavant to your field as well. Care to share your own opinions?

 

[iambatman]

So, as competent Pre-Meds, which is it?

And what are your views on socialized medicine? What are the Positives? What are the negatives?

Does President Bush's Health Care Policy adapt well, as to how Physicians and other Health Care officials can 'best' manage Health Care?

As competent Pre-Meds, what is your view on euthenasia? What about the Death Penalty?

If a patient needed treatment, but couldn't afford health care, what would you do?

These are just some questions that you better know how to answer, so I'd love to read responses.

As a future dentist, a number of those questions are relavant to your field as well. Care to share your own opinions?

SURE!

I believe the goal of any doctor should be (primary) to treat the patient, and then (secondarily), treat the illness.
Doctors need to be sensitive to patients from various cultural backgrounds, instead of adopting the 'find disease and eliminate' method first.
So, in short, treat the patient first, and then the disease (if you know what I mean).

To many things, there are always positives and negatives. Socialized medicine, is essentially a government funded health care program, and health care is provided to EVERYONE, and it is free. The positives - less stress for patients (a huge positive). The negatives (the are many), less pay for physicians, many people abuse the system, and make unnessesary visits.

Bush has not adopted socialized medicine, instead, we have mainly what is known as 'privatized medicine', which involves insurance companies (those heartless bastards). It's worked so far, doctors earn relatively more, however, patients can be stressed when left with 'large' medical bills that insurance will not cover, because of a 'not so good' insurance plan (cheap). and guess who has those types of plans - the people that can't afford the 'better plan'. well, back to bush's policy - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class will always struggle.

As far as euthenasia is concerned, I'm for it. However, under stict circumstances/conditions - but the problem is, where does one draw the line? That's the tricky part.

I am against the Death Penalty. My religion, and values tell me not to believe in Revenge. And the Death Penalty embodies Revenge to the highest degree. The Death Penalty, in my opinion, is outdated, and too medeival, I can't believe that it is going on. It was Gandhi who said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

If a patient needed treatment, but couldn't afford it, then I'd take it as my personal responsiblity, as a dentist, to sit with the patient in my office, and go through various financing options, and work with the patient to a final solution. I'd always consider humanistic aspects as a dentist first, I'll remember, that I decided on a health care profession because I love helping and working with PEOPLE - and that is my ultimate goal.

Remember, these are just my opinions. A dentist I shadowed asked me some of these questions, and after I answered them, he was impressed.

He did not care what I had to say about them, he told me, there is no WRONG or RIGHT answer - he was impressed that I DO have my own opinions, and that I'm not just some applicant with STATS and figures, I actually have some kind of 'personality'.

It doesn't matter HOW you answer the questions, the important point, is that you've thought about them, and you have formed your OWN opinion on them.

 

[maxflash04]

The only question I'd like to answer in OP's original post is about whether or not to treat a patient that can't afford healthcare.

Some background information about me: I am 19, taking 19 hours this semester, and living back at home with my parents because of my income issues and debt caused by UC. I was diagnosed with UC a year ago but had symptoms at least 6 months before I was diagnosed by my GI doctor. I've gone to the ER three or four times this year only due to severe and uncontrollable flare-up. My medicine, Asacol, which is required by my GI doctor costs $500.00/mo. You wouldn't have any idea the debt I've endured the past year and a half due to going to the ER, doctor visits, medicine prices (was recently accepted to P&G's patient program due to my income so that's a good thing), etc.

Whenever I become a doctor it won't matter what I specialize in or anything, if I'm treating a patient similar to my situation, can provide documentation that they can't afford treatment or medicine, and is still trying to work and go to school full-time then I would treat them regardless. We're all humans and not everyone is fortunate enough to make enough money to support themselves, family, school, and treatment/medicine for something they can't control.

Though treating patients free of charge won't be as profitable for me in terms of money, it'll definitely be beneficial to the patient and could very well save their life. That's all that matters to me.

maxflash04

 

[riceman04]

So, as competent Pre-Meds, which is it?

And what are your views on socialized medicine? What are the Positives? What are the negatives?

Does President Bush's Health Care Policy adapt well, as to how Physicians and other Health Care officials can 'best' manage Health Care?

As competent Pre-Meds, what is your view on euthenasia? What about the Death Penalty?

If a patient needed treatment, but couldn't afford health care, what would you do?

These are just some questions that you better know how to answer, so I'd love to read responses.

Like yourmom, I am not well read on the topic of socialized medicine. However, I will say that the major positive aspect of socialized medicine is that you are guaranteed healthcare, which I think should be a right and not a priviledge here in the states (may have mispelled). I know that one negative aspect of it is that it takes an extremely long time to actually see the doctor. You may schedule and appointment in August but may not see him/her until January (not sure of actual length of time btw scheduling and appointment date. Furthermore, the process of receiving possible critical care is much more drawn out than it is here.

About bush: Can you inform me what his policy is b/c I only thought he had been focusing on reducing the cost of meds for people on medicare (or is it medicaid....I think it is medicare).

I kind of like Oregon's Law on assisted suicide! I do not remember the specifics of it but it does allow terminally ill patients (who I think have no chance of survival) to have the option of "prematurely" ending their life. I am for the death penalty, but not for the process by which they determine who is eligible to die....A life is a life....and since we treat an innocent life as such we should treat a guilty person's life the same (if that makes any sense)...very delicately!

If a patient who could not afford medical treatment I would still treat them. But it does get a little gray when you bring illegal immigrants into the picture. That's a whole other topic that is blurry that I am still trying to work out in my head....
I will say for now though that I would definitely provide freehealth care to a citizen if even if he/she could not afford it.....The cost of everything has dramatically increased, but wages have not, and many low level jobs have been sent overseas!

 

[CTSballer11]

So, as competent Pre-Meds, which is it?

And what are your views on socialized medicine? What are the Positives? What are the negatives?

Does President Bush's Health Care Policy adapt well, as to how Physicians and other Health Care officials can 'best' manage Health Care?

As competent Pre-Meds, what is your view on euthenasia? What about the Death Penalty?

If a patient needed treatment, but couldn't afford health care, what would you do?

These are just some questions that you better know how to answer, so I'd love to read responses.

These are some good questions.
Socialized medicine is fine with me so long as the money used for it does not come out of the doctors salary. Not to sure about Bush's health policy, I would like to see some really serious tort reform in the next five years. Euthanasia is a very touchy subject among conservatives ( ie: Terri Schavo)
but there are definately certain situations where it is acceptable. Bill Frist looked like a fool when he came out and made an erroneous diagnoses on Terri Schavo. As a surgeon he has made many calls to end the life of someone. The death penalty is fine in certain cases, but others it is too much of a risk that someone innocent is being kiiled. If a patient needed healthcare and could not afford it I would see the patient for free, the only problem is there are only so many patients you can see free of charge and still run a successful practice.

 

[little_late_MD]

"To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

I don't need an opinion on euthanasia, the oath I take when I become a doctor gives me my opinion.

If euthanasia is legalized, then I believe that service should be provided by individuals whose craft is not subsumed under the umbrella of "medicine."

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

As far as treating patient v disease: pre-meds would benefit by spending time on message boards for people with illnesses and parents of kids with illnesses instead of SDN. They'll tell you what they think of doctors and how it feels to be treated like an illness instead of a person. That's also part of the point of volunteering in a healthcare setting.

Socialized medicine: I'm in favor of Single Payer Healthcare. it is neither socialized nor private. I personally HATE the current system: i've spent many years uninsured and am headed that way again in February, i have insurance now and have been fighting for over a year just to get them to follow the law and pay for my son's treatment. Their immorality is mind-blowing. They are currently trying to use a legal loophole to deny us. It disgusts me. Like: hey, you have a kid with 2 genetic disorders so we thought we'd make your life even harder. Yes, this is helping the health of the nation. There's a special spot in Hell for lawyers who work for health insurance companies.

Would I treat a pennyless patient: in the past I've had doctors who allowed me to make payments over time. It's a fair way to handle it. Even if they can only give me 5 bucks a month, yes i would definately treat them. Hopefulyl someone feels the same way about me come February.

 

[DrBowtie]

i have insurance now and have been fighting for over a year just to get them to follow the law and pay for my son's treatment. Their immorality is mind-blowing. They are currently trying to use a legal loophole to deny us. It disgusts me.

It is a stretch to call it immoral. They are an insurance company with a vested interest in NOT paying out money. It is the natural instinct for you to not understand since you have an emotional attachment to the situation. Legal loophole or not, it all comes down to $$$$ not morals.

 

[little_late_MD]

It is a stretch to call it immoral. They are an insurance company with a vested interest in NOT paying out money. It is the natural instinct for you to not understand since you have an emotional attachment to the situation. Legal loophole or not, it all comes down to $$$$ not morals.

If one were to follow that logic anyone with a financial interest in some discrete outcome is morally absolved from the reprecussions of the actions leading to that outcome. It's a slippery slope you've put yourself on there Batchelor.

 

[iambatman]

some really great stuff above! thanks for the read future doc's!

 

[DentalGal]

doctor cares for the patient, treats the illness.

i don't like socialized medicine because i don't feel it solves any of our current problems and will create new ones. i also am not very learned on this subject so my opinion is a myopic one.

ditto on bush.

euthanasia is permissible in cases where the patient requests it and/or they are terminally ill and are suffering more than drugs can compensate for.

no money, no treatment.

and why do you keep calling us competent premeds as opposed to future doctors or something similar?

No money, no treatment??? That's terrible. As a doctor, you are supposed to treat ALL patients, whether or not they can pay. You just don't refuse someone who needs care!!!

 

[DrBowtie]

If one were to follow that logic anyone with a financial interest in some discrete outcome is morally absolved from the reprecussions of the actions leading to that outcome. It's a slippery slope you've put yourself on there Batchelor.

When dealing in the insurance sector, the separation between emotion and business needs to be there or else there would be no insurance b/c all procedures would be approved and companies would go bankrupt.

Specifically it is the case for insurance, I am not advocating illegal activity so the slope isn't too slippery.

 

[Rendar5]

"To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

I don't need an opinion on euthanasia, the oath I take when I become a doctor gives me my opinion.

If euthanasia is legalized, then I believe that service should be provided by individuals whose craft is not subsumed under the umbrella of "medicine."

Hippocrates also makes the pledge to greek gods and goddesses, forbids surgery, all forms of abortion (including in instances of danger to the health of the mother), medical school tuition, public medical education. And tells u to treat ur teachers as ur brothers and give them money if they ever need any and to teach their kids medicine.

(err...let's not get into the abortion debate. please. it's not my point. I actually agree w/ 2 of those things i listed. it's just a list of stuff in the classic hippocratic oath that are at odds with modern medicine in most countries. the free medical tuition does exist in some countries, though. ).

 

[CuddlyKumquat]

As far as treating patient v disease: pre-meds would benefit by spending time on message boards for people with illnesses and parents of kids with illnesses instead of SDN. They'll tell you what they think of doctors and how it feels to be treated like an illness instead of a person. That's also part of the point of volunteering in a healthcare setting.

Socialized medicine: I'm in favor of Single Payer Healthcare. it is neither socialized nor private. I personally HATE the current system: i've spent many years uninsured and am headed that way again in February, i have insurance now and have been fighting for over a year just to get them to follow the law and pay for my son's treatment. Their immorality is mind-blowing. They are currently trying to use a legal loophole to deny us. It disgusts me. Like: hey, you have a kid with 2 genetic disorders so we thought we'd make your life even harder. Yes, this is helping the health of the nation. There's a special spot in Hell for lawyers who work for health insurance companies.

Would I treat a pennyless patient: in the past I've had doctors who allowed me to make payments over time. It's a fair way to handle it. Even if they can only give me 5 bucks a month, yes i would definately treat them. Hopefulyl someone feels the same way about me come February.

Could you explain what Single Payer Healthcare is?

 

[unfrozencaveman]

No money, no treatment??? That's terrible. As a doctor, you are supposed to treat ALL patients, whether or not they can pay. You just don't refuse someone who needs care!!!

I'm pretty sure this is a trap to avoid in these kinds of questions. Essentially this answer is "throw money at the problem", which yes, is a solution, but obviously not a viable one.

Doctors cannot operate at a loss, neither can the business of insurance, neither can governments.

Essentially, saying as a doctor you have to treat everyone is the same thing as if someone came up to you on the street now, said they were dying and needed $10,000 to get better, and could you provide it?

No matter what your answer is, whether you like socialized medicine, market driven healthcare, or some middle ground variant, you need to have a response that shows a basic understanding, and a realistic approach.

Sorry to pick on you-- credit should be given for that kind of idealism because it's something we need greatly in medicine.

 

[63768]

Wow, glad to know that there are people out there with answers exactly opposite to all of mine lol.

(I hope the word Bush doesn't come up in an interview, lest I actually say what I think about him.)

well, i guess that's why we have different factions even between physicians. again, i don't think i know enough about socialized medicine or bush's policies to have a strong, educated opinion. all i know is those doctors i have met from england and sweden despise their healthcare system and have since moved to the US to practice despite the cost of uprooting themselves.

and i'd hate to hear anything about bush and/or any of the current topics that people are battering him about. i don't like bush but there's a difference between attributable blame and slander.

finally, y'all don't realize that medicine is a business as well as a vocation. you cannot operate at a loss. would you take essentially $0 to care for every patient who came to your doorstep? i guess y'all have not dealt with specialists as i have. virtually 100% of the specialists i have shadowed, helped, etc with hate medicaid patients because it doesn't pay. even billing patients for a level 2 follow up is operating at a loss.

now simply volunteering my time as i have at a shoulder clinic in the VA hospital is a worthy use of my time. i will donate as much time as i can as a physician because i am helping people, yet i am not operating at a loss.

 

[riceman04]

No money, no treatment??? That's terrible. As a doctor, you are supposed to treat ALL patients, whether or not they can pay. You just don't refuse someone who needs care!!!

You are right.... Hippocratic Oath!

 

[Rendar5]

You are right.... Hippocratic Oath!

damn right. and down with doctors performing surgery! We're not supposed to do that, don't you know.

 

[tank you]

call me a softie, but i would treat patients with certain diseases/disorders that i have personally experienced or seen family & friends go through. i would rather not mention them, but they are serious illnesses, and after going through the treatment (both directly and indirectly) and seeing the favorable outcome, i would feel remorse if i didnt help another person with the same problems if i had the know-how to do so

 

[synapse lapse]

As for euthanasia. I found out at a recent lecture (pain medicine lecture, part of my neurology course) about Thomas Aquinas allowing for a double treatment effect, which is the basis for legal euthanasia to some extent in NY.

Just FYI, it's called the doctrine of double effect. It's an absurd doctrine in many ways, but I will save the thread from that debate. It is absurd in cases of euthanasia anyhow because of one of the conditions of the doctrine is that the agent not inted/will the negative consequince. The negative consequince must be merely a foreseen event by the agent, not his intended purpose, which is clearly not the case in euthanasia (you could say in some loose sense that the doctor's intent was to cure the patient of pain, and that the death was merely a foreseen consequince, and not intended consequince, but this is obviously absurd as different drugs/treatment options are available). In response to OP:


And what are your views on socialized medicine? What are the Positives? What are the negatives?

Against socialized medicine, long debate, far too long for me to type now and topic has been discussed ad naseum.

Does President Bush's Health Care Policy adapt well, as to how Physicians and other Health Care officials can 'best' manage Health Care?

Support some aspects of current health policy, and don't support others. Again, long discussion.

As competent Pre-Meds, what is your view on euthenasia? What about the Death Penalty?

I support both active and passive euthanasia, and I currently feel the death penalty is wrong, though this is actually a philosophical issue I have yet to logically reason through to the point of a conclusion I can assert through argument.

If a patient needed treatment, but couldn't afford health care, what would you do?

Depends on the treatment, as well as the doctor/environment he practices in. Some cases I would treat, others I wouldn't. I feel health care is a comodity not a right, and as such is to be purchased. In most cases I say no money = no treatment. There are obviously tons of exceptions based on factors such as those I mentioned earlier, age of patient, etc.

 

[little_late_MD]

When dealing in the insurance sector, the separation between emotion and business needs to be there or else there would be no insurance b/c all procedures would be approved and companies would go bankrupt.

Specifically it is the case for insurance, I am not advocating illegal activity so the slope isn't too slippery.

The primary purpose of insurance is to pool risk. It is based on the statistical probability that the chances of something egregious happening to any one individual out of a population are fairly small. Generally (at least in most other industries) insurance is used to pay for catastrophic events; ie a hurricane, car accident, etc. It is only recently(within the last several decades) that medical insurance companies have begun to pick up the tab for routine visits. This was done explicitly to raise more revenue dollars. By granting insurance coverage for every routine annual visit or cough a patient has, the primary tenet of insurance has been violated. Risk is no longer pooled and diluted. There is a probablity of close to 100% that at some point in your life you will need to go to a doctor.

So insurance started to cover people for almost every procedure/office visit. Guess what happened...medical bills started to go up. Enter the HMO....and even higher medical bills, which led to less money for the insurance companies, which led to higher rejection rates for claims.

My point isn't that both the insurance and medical industries in America need to be reformed (which they do, in an almost revolutionary way), rather that way back when, moving your earnings per share up a tenth of a point per quarter wasn't the overarching concern for all insurance companies. They saw a need that needed to be filled, and did so while earning a handsome profit. Now that the primary goal is no longer patient care, but maximizing shareholder value, morality has been placed aside. Providing their primary function as a risk-dispersion element has been replaced with a new function: portfolio manager. These days insurance is less concerned with its clients, and more concerned with the performance of their investment portfolios. In case you hadn't heard, institutional investors such as insurance companies and pension funds are the largest movers of capital in the world. This is where the dichotomy is created. I don't see how insurance companies of any stripe can continue to function as agents of both their clients and the markets. A man cannot serve two masters for long.....

There doesn't need to be an ounce of emotion in any insurance decision. If Billy needs a $150000 procedure to repair one of his valves, and Billy's family is up-to-date on their premiums, then the procedure is covered. I think that's about as cold as you can get on a decision-making level. If you don't like paying out that kind of money, then only cover primary care, or get into the car insurance business. To reject a claim out of hand that is over a certain dollar value regardless of the necessity of that claim is both immoral and unethical. Good thing we have deregulated the insurance industry to such a point that ethics no longer have a role in the S.O.Ps

 

[Ross434]

I know that the avg life expectancy in cuba is almost equal to ours, and the avg cost per person is $197 a year. Here it's about 10x that amount. Course, we wait til we're really sick to get treatment and don't do much prevention here (not necessarily the doctors fault). Course, socialized medicine also has some real drawbacks, at least from what i've seen w/ some european neighbors. I'm prolly still quite myopic about it too.

As for euthanasia. I found out at a recent lecture (pain medicine lecture, part of my neurology course) about Thomas Aquinas allowing for a double treatment effect, which is the basis for legal euthanasia to some extent in NY. If there is a positive and a negative effect for a treatment, and the patient is aware of both, you are allowed to use the treatment w/ the patient's permission, even if the negative effect is worse than the positive effect. So in the case of a terminal patient in their late 70s, severe abdominal pain, on a ventilator, DNR orders, but resuscitated 5 times already (he was ready to die, but didn't want to die feeling like he was drowning). The pain doc was legally allowed to give him a huge cocktail of atropine, morphine, and some other drugs even though the likely effect of that would be death. Allowed because it would relieve his pain and pulmonary edema. Patient and his family liked this option. So he was given the drugs, taken off the vent, was able to say goodbye to his family, and drifted off to sleep and then death.

I support euthanasia to a slightly more extent than this, but would still severely limit its use to terminal cases (and I prefer the DNR choice when the patient is likely to die soon anyway, but its up to the patient).

They live long in cuba because they're sitting on a beach drinking daquiri's all day. Duh!

 

[Rendar5]

Doctrine of Double Effect? I knew whatever I called it was wrong, lol. It's what I get for not reading any Aquinas when i was in college. I'm not sure what other drugs and treatments were available though. It was just a basic drug cocktail to treat each of the main symptoms as far as we were told. Of course, we couldn't go into any detail seeing as we don't touch pulmonary phys/pathophys until the spring, so I can't comment on it. If you could explain the whole doctrine and its absurdity to me (or point me in the direction), I actually would be interested in knowing since we never touched this concept. PM since it prolly doesn't belong on this thread.

Just FYI, it's called the doctrine of double effect. It's an absurd doctrine in many ways, but I will save the thread from that debate. It is absurd in cases of euthanasia anyhow because of one of the conditions of the doctrine is that the agent not inted/will the negative consequince. The negative consequince must be merely a foreseen event by the agent, not his intended purpose, which is clearly not the case in euthanasia (you could say in some loose sense that the doctor's intent was to cure the patient of pain, and that the death was merely a foreseen consequince, and not intended consequince, but this is obviously absurd as different drugs/treatment options are available).

 

[unfrozencaveman]

If a patient needed treatment, but couldn't afford health care, what would you do?

Depends on the treatment, as well as the doctor/environment he practices in. Some cases I would treat, others I wouldn't. I feel health care is a comodity not a right, and as such is to be purchased. In most cases I say no money = no treatment. There are obviously tons of exceptions based on factors such as those I mentioned earlier, age of patient, etc.

I think people also need to remember that "treatment" isn't just your time, and your good nature. It involves tangible things- drugs, bandaids, people you hire on set salaries. You might be willing to treat anyone and everyone that comes through the door, even when it cuts into your paychecks, but the reality is you just can't. And neither can an HMO, and neither can a socialized medicine system.... No matter how you slice it, and for all the altruism in the world, healthcare IS a commodity.

Even a non-profit has to turn around some hefty cash. Demonizing the flow of money into and out of medicine (within reason- I realize there are many unscrupulous people in the field), seems to me, to be a poorly laid plan for fixing the state of things.

 

[63768]

I think people also need to remember that "treatment" isn't just your time, and your good nature. It involves tangible things- drugs, bandaids, people you hire on set salaries. You might be willing to treat anyone and everyone that comes through the door, even when it cuts into your paychecks, but the reality is you just can't. And neither can an HMO, and neither can a socialized medicine system.... No matter how you slice it, and for all the altruism in the world, healthcare IS a commodity.

Even a non-profit has to turn around some hefty cash. Demonizing the flow of money into and out of medicine (within reason- I realize there are many unscrupulous people in the field), seems to me, to be a poorly laid plan for fixing the state of things.

yes i wholly agree. i do condemn those doctors out there who are all about the numbers and will sacrifice patient care (i.e. 5 min visits) to make the most money. and yet i still feel that, as unfrozencaveman said, there's a lot of things that go into caring for a patient. if it were only time, it'd be fine.

 

[sacrament]

competent Pre-Meds

haha... say what? What is this "competent pre-med" you speak of?

 

[Rendar5]

Hush, sac, let them be happy in their ignorance and not realize until later their lack of competence

 

[DrMike24]

What do you all think about this website? I think it has some good info....
http://home.austin.rr.com/austintxmd/Pages/intro.html

Also, i thought this was a pretty good website explaining single payer healthcare. Sounds pretty good to me
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

 

[synapse lapse]

Doctrine of Double Effect? I knew whatever I called it was wrong, lol. It's what I get for not reading any Aquinas when i was in college. I'm not sure what other drugs and treatments were available though. It was just a basic drug cocktail to treat each of the main symptoms as far as we were told. Of course, we couldn't go into any detail seeing as we don't touch pulmonary phys/pathophys until the spring, so I can't comment on it. If you could explain the whole doctrine and its absurdity to me (or point me in the direction), I actually would be interested in knowing since we never touched this concept. PM since it prolly doesn't belong on this thread.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is a wonderful resource for anyone interested in philosophical issues.

 

[zzman]

Socialized medicine would not reduce a doctors adjusted income, malpractice insurance is significantly less and therefore they don't need huge paychecks to cover their own asses. However, doctors who specialize in low risk fields (and are profiting from physician salary inflation due to high malpractice insurance in other fields) will be the only ones losing compensation.

 

[riceman04]

damn right. and down with doctors performing surgery! We're not supposed to do that, don't you know.

haha haha...jokes....jokes.... STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CTSballer11]

yes i wholly agree. i do condemn those doctors out there who are all about the numbers and will sacrifice patient care (i.e. 5 min visits) to make the most money. and yet i still feel that, as unfrozencaveman said, there's a lot of things that go into caring for a patient. if it were only time, it'd be fine.

Yea I agree with you about those doctors that sacrifice patient care to make as much money as possible. One thing you have to remember is that we are only premeds, we have not been through the hells of medical school and residency. I for one have not dealt with insurance companies, I am sure it is a pain in the a**. Untill we get there we cannot possibly understand why certain doctors are alll about the money.

 

[Rendar5]

ooh, haven't seen those computer-throwing smileys in awhile, lol. (don't usually hit the "More" link under smilies). Anyway, I just don't think "Hippocrates said so" is a good reason for anything, considering we take modified oaths today and considering he's a bit archaic. Though I don't disagree w/ what u said (though I did w/ the previous person I spouted stupid hippocratic stuff for).

 

[riceman04]

ooh, haven't seen those computer-throwing smileys in awhile, lol. (don't usually hit the "More" link under smilies). Anyway, I just don't think "Hippocrates said so" is a good reason for anything, considering we take modified oaths today and considering he's a bit archaic. Though I don't disagree w/ what u said (though I did w/ the previous person I spouted stupid hippocratic stuff for).

Now that I think about it....I think that maybe everyone should be charged for medical services, but at a rate at which they can afford (kind of like extreme subsidized healthcare)....but since I have not really thought it through, you can pretty much say I am talking out my azz right now.

 

[redgrover]

No money, no treatment??? That's terrible. As a doctor, you are supposed to treat ALL patients, whether or not they can pay. You just don't refuse someone who needs care!!!

So let's just give free healthcare to all those illegal immigrants pouring over our borders?

And just leave the borders open, hun. It's racist not to.

Geez, do you know how many hospitals have shut down in the San Fernando Valley in the past 6-7 years because they just let anyone in? They couldn't take it and collapsed.

There are very serious considerations that I don't think you've taken the time to address.