Debate:Should People who make bad medical descisions be given treatment

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by bubba41102.

Stop sign.svg

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around.
Stop now. Step away from the keyboard.
Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

Warning: May cause dumbening
Studies sujest that reedin this stuf mite caws dumbenin.
Plees dunna sownd oot teh wurds.
U mite end up lik mii. Oh noes!

The debate[edit]

Basically, there was a debate going on in the saloon bar, it is really freaking long you can find it here person i saw awhile ago Basicly the debate is is taht if people make bad medical desiscions should they be given government back treatment, or treatment at all. Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 13:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Arguments[edit]

My personal veiw on this is that if people make b.s medical descisions they sould be fined, this is the view of another person in teh debate but i agree with it, i belive it is a really good idea, that way antivaxxers and alt med peole are gien an incetive to use real medicine. Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 13:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. What a total non-starter. If you give it five minutes worth of thought, you will see that "if people make BS medical decisions they should be fined" entails a whole lot of nope. It would mean putting a layer of legal bureaucracy in between patients and their doctors, snooping into that private relationship to make sure that the patient was compliant, snooping into the lives of citizens who might have a medical issue, but have not yet seen a medical provider, and evaluating patients' decisions to see what fines were to be imposed. That is not a planet anyone in their right mind would want to live on. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
im not speaking aabout not getting treatment because you want to die, but for non medical reasons such as "toxins" or that my psychic said i shouldnt, if you want to die then go for it, because i consider that a medical reason. Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 13:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
if not that then just have their doctors try to cuurve them away form alt med bs. Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 13:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
[EC] Understood, but who decides what is and is not a good decision, and how much to charge the turkeys who don't fall in line with what the doctor tells them? It won't be your friendly local Department of Motor Vehicles, but a bigger, less friendly Bureau of Keeping the Public's Head Out of Its Collective Ass, BOKTPHOOICA for short. Or do you have a different idea?
Having the doctor gently encourage them away from a bad decision is not at all the same as making them pay a fine. Which one are you arguing for, again? Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
i actually like the Bureau of Keeping the Public's Head out of Its Collective Ass, that would be helpful, especially in the US where people will literally belive anything (as you hav eseen here) Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 13:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't tell whether that makes you a starry-eyed idealist or a desk-pounding, paper-shuffling authoritarian. You're talking about creating a bureaucracy of a size and scope comparable to the IRS. In my view, that would be a colossal misappropriation of human effort, unlikely to be kind, or even competent. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Bureaucracy? None extra needed for some of the stuff. "Dear ALICE, our records indicate that your sons BOB and CHARLIE are at least 5 years of age, have yet to be vaccinated and we have received no record of valid medical reason for exemption. Please schedule an appointment with a doctor for vaccinations within 90 days or have your doctor forward us form AB-34. If you do not comply, you will be forced to pay a fine of $500 per child per year." CorruptUser (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
We already have "your kids shot records aren't up to date, so keep them out of public school until they get immunized" in most state school systems. Fines? Good luck imposing those without costly challenges.
More importantly, that is only a small part of the initial premise, which was prompted, IIRC, by someone refusing chemo in early stage cancer when treatment was cheaper and more likely to work. Later, same patient comes back with the disease in a more advanced stage, needing more expensive treatment. Also fine them? That's gonna need some extra bureaucracy. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty much a mirror of what insurance companies already do all the friggen time. "This recto-ectocardiogram seems unnecessary, please justify why you gave our patient two of them". CorruptUser (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
What has [some unrelated thing insurance companies do] got to do with the price of fish? Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Because government run health care in the US is pretty much public insurance. (What Europeans (and most Americans, actually) don't understand is that 2/3, yes two whole thirds, of medical spending is Government. We basically get multiples of the cost of universal healthcare with only a fraction of the benefit.) And government already does turn around and ask doctors to justify all sorts of procedures. "Added bureaucracy"? It's ALREADY in place. Doctors ALREADY turn around to the government and say "Patient is unusually sick because of noncompliance, need additional reimbursement". We just need a way to *ahem* encourage patient compliance, and people care more about money than they do their own health. CorruptUser (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Smells like mission creep. Now the insurance companies, or whoever is managing the payments to the medical providers, would take on the burden of evaluating and "motivating" patient compliance. You expect the extra workload (and it would be huge) to be accomplished without extra cost? Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Who says it needs to be comprehensive? Could be the stuff that's easy to keep track of, like vaccinations and checkups. Get all vaccinations and have yearly checkup, 10% discount. Oh, and it's already done for things like auto insurance; attend 5 hour Defensive Driving course (free for public), 10% reduction in insurance rates for 3 years. Of course, a discount for doing something is exactly the same as a tax for not doing something, but it just sounds so much nicer :P. CorruptUser (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That may be a worthwhile model, but the premise of this argument began as "crisis care resulting from patients' prior neglect should prompt fines for those patients" with no hint of limiting the scope in the way you've just suggested. If you want goalposts in a different spot, it's time to start a different game. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually it began as a question of society's duty to said patients, and where the line in the sand actually is. CorruptUser (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That may have been the overarching topic, but I said "this argument" for a reason. It started with "My personal veiw on this is that if people make b.s medical descisions they sould be fined"
To take a US-centric view of things, adding layers of patient disincentives for non-compliance to an already bloated insurance industry will only bloat it further, and provide opportunity for a different breed of litigant, in the vein of the ambulance chasers we already have. "Citizen, that quarter pounder will cost you another $50 on your premium. Thank you for your cooperation." Imagine how well that will go over. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Of fucking course they should[edit]

What are you? A sociopath? Being wrong is not a crime. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

look at the Vaccine if you look at the argument there hey are technically endangering others by not getting vaccinated. — Unsigned, by: Bubba41102 / talk / contribs 13:32, 30 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Taking this to its logical conclusion[edit]

So, no health care for druggies, or smokers, or alcoholics or those who eat too much chocolate (so that's me out) or those who drive rather than walk to the corner shop, or those who drive at all (have you seen the accident rate?), or... or... That will cut the NHS shortages. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

chocolate is healthy, dark moreso than milk. eat lots. Hamster (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's why I'm, so overweight healthy! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

FUCK NO!![edit]

If idiocy should become a punishable offense, than you'd have to nuke the whole fucking planet, cause EVERY human did something stupid in his life!!--Arisboch (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


What annoys me is when I'm told my opinions on medical moralism involve setting up a "strawman".

My unscientific impression is that here in the US, we are simply awash in unsolicited medical advice, most of it profit-oriented body-shaming. People must not be allowed to get comfortable in their own skins; that won't move the product. (As for myself, I'm resolved not to buy any processed food items that make health, dietary, nutritional, or weight-loss claims on the packaging or advertising, including claiming that it has reduced anything or is "anything-free". I also seek out GMO foods, figuring they're my best bet to acquire mutant superpowers.)

Given this glut of medicalistic and moralistic informercialism, and the fickleness of the various scares, (Eggs are bad for you! No they're not! Tomorrow: the health benefits of high fructose corn sugar....) I just assume that anybody talking about health or nutrition on the US media is trying to make me feel bad to sell something. So any medical information from the US media comes at a steep credibility discount already. I do not buy any packaged foods that contain any representations about diet, weight loss, supposed health benefits, nutrition, or exercise on the packaging. This is less of a "boycott" and more of a "weary of hearing it" thing, but it is intended to do what little I can to train the media to shut up about that shit. I also do not buy foods that feature these sorts of claims in advertising that I'm aware of. This includes the Subway sandwich chain. The most obnoxious offenders in this regard --- breakfast cereals claiming to prevent cancer or heart disease --- aren't much of a sacrifice since I don't eat breakfast cereals anyways.

The entire ideology of public-healthism seems to me to show a basic lack of charity. It tells the sick and suffering that it's all your fault. You didn't live right. Now you're paying for it. And I get to be angry at you for it, because I am being taxed for your failure to shape up. I cannot reconcile this belief system with the most basic duties I owe to my neighbors. So I'm against it entirely.

There's also a strong class animus in all of this. People who can achieve the media-medical complex's vision of slenderness are almost by definition members of a leisure class. They have the time and the money to pursue that. Meanwhile, they're all telling us that it's about lacking willpower, about being too lazy to put in the effort. This is what the rich have always said about the poor, and what Whites always said about Blacks (or Irish, or Mexicans, or whoever is it this month.) This is another reason why a society full of food moralism is not one you want to live in. Cigarette smoking is now a lower class phenomenon as well, and the punitive cigarette excise taxes punish the poor.

With a single exception not relevant here, everybody dies. (Well, he did too.) And everybody dies "of" something. "Cancer" is old age. "Heart disease" is old age. It's not a matter of them not being old age; it's just that science has that many pigeonholes to identify which organ or system gave out first. It may be the case that your genes have programmed you to die at 45. Once you pass childbearing age, you're invisible to Darwin. And for someone confronting the terrors of the end of life at 45, we have more important and less rude things to tell them than "you might have lasted longer if you'd taken up jogging."

So, yeah, I'm against attempts to punish people or deny them benefits because they failed to follow some sort of health regimen. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

One exception? Do you mean Elijah? PacWalker 03:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess there were more; there was Elijah, and also Enoch. For Roman Catholics, Mary also counts. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I always forget Enoch for some reason. PacWalker 03:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
There's also God the Father and the Holy Spirit, who might very well be physically incapable of dying. But speaking of not dying, I think we might be or will soon be entering into the age where the first humans who might never die are born, so the adage "everybody dies" might soon become obsolete. (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

decisions - spelling[edit]

you spelled it wrong. Hamster (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If we're gonna point out all Bubba's typos we'll be at it for a long time. (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I type fast but i make typos, most of the time i am able to find them, unless i am feeling particularly lazy, which i was, but expect typos from me. (by find them i mean most of them some of them stay, and my works browser doesnt have spell check for the editor)Bubba41102 42 is love 42 is life 17:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I make them myself , but its in the Title dude. anyway, as long as people decide for themselves some will make bad choices. Hamster (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)