Gramps, did you actually read the article? It's actually a quite good op-ed piece on the subject.
The point of it being that you can't have society without ethics or morals, and that pretending your issues exist outside of an ethical framework, even a personal one, undermines anything you want to promote as right or wrong.
The writer is talking primarily about the doctor part of the doctor patient equation you mention.
How can they as a group realistically say that there is some ethical limit on how many eggs you can implant in a woman, or such things as human subject testing without consent or informing the subject, or honestly pretty much EVERY facet of medicine not regulated by and not say that the practice of abortion should not be a matter subject to ethical review and boundaries. If it isn't, then perhaps the legal system getting involved is the way to establish boundaries. If there are no boundaries, why do we get so upset about people like Dr. Mengele?
Some examples he gives are abortions for sex selection. If the pro-choice movement is about seeing women as equals and autonomous individuals, is it in line with your ethical model to perform an abortion because someone sees their female fetus as being a waste?
Yeah, I read it, and the author makes a good point but those ethical and moral considerations are best left to the the pregnant individual, her physician, and another else that she includes in the decision-making process.
I don't see a role for Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, that wide-stance Senator from Idaho, or any other politician you can think of, including the poster Mom for fertility Sarah Palin. I say keep lawyers and politicians out of it. Keep it private.
The whole article is about medical professionals addressing the ethical issues of abortion.
If you think the government is going to stay out of it long term, why do you want socialized health care. It makes the government your doctor in effect.
As the article states, your world view is in conflict with your world view. Pretending the question doesn't exist in a context that exceeds some place you are comfortable sequestering it away doesn't make it limited to that area.
Realistically, there is probably some threshold on one side you are comfortable with an abortion, and on the other you are not. There are some women out there who would off their 6 year old if there were no consequences. Do you allow yourself to become part of her unacceptable morality? Do you FORCE people to become part of that screwed up morality with the threat of losing their job or worse?
I don't want socialized health care, unless you mean it in the sense that Medicare and Medicaid is socialized health care. I don't think of it that way because health care providers aren't working for the government, they just get paid a fee for service by the government on some of their cases. To me it is an important distinction.
When health care is operated by the government, you have socialized health care, the VA is one American example. Now I don't think the VA is all that great, and not as good as our independent system, but it isn't something as fearsome as the word "Socialized" implies.
So if the point of the debate is what is and isn't socialism, then you guys will win the debate. If it becomes about the fact that we are already spending way too much on health care (we meaning the sum of we pays as individuals, our employers pay, and the government pays)and how do we reduce that, we all win.
If the only one paying doctors are patients with cash, or government programs, that's socialized medicine. By heading down the road of forming a "government option" that is effectively insurance doctors are FORCED to take, and that undercuts everyone else on premiums, that's where you wind up. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot or a liar.
You have never been involved with someone who has been told no by the VA. It is a huge pain in the ass, and not in the least bit friendly or good. Trading private insurance that tries mainly to hide the fact that you have options from government programs where you actually have no recourse to appeal decisions doesn't seem like fixing anything.
But my point wasn't about socialized medicine. It is about claiming some moral or ethical superiority while exempting yourself from having to make any ethical or moral decision because you force someone else to be the actual person stuck in the ethical quandary.
The premise behind the crying and carrying on about the government option taking over is that private insurance won't be able to compete with the government run program. If this program is run about as well as the VA, which is an optimistic assumption, then private companies should be able to be competitive, even with the outrageous sums made by the principals in those companies.
I recently heard a story about a private HMO in my area (really bottom of the barrel don't-cover-anything managed care company) The guy who owned it bought an even shittier local HMO, merged the two companies and sold them to a big corporation, walking away with an $80 million profit for the 2 years he was in business. Sharks like this guy should be able to find some way of staying competitive against the government.
(By the way, doctors have been essentially forced to take Medicare for a long time, and the sky hasn't fallen)
Medicare causes all sorts of problem. One Medicare and Medicaid represent the majority of our fiscal budget while providing only a fraction of the health care in terms of population.
Medicare pays out less, and leaves practices scrambling for funds. mainly because the number of patients and their medical needs outstrips billable hours that can be provided by staff. At least at the GP level.
Medicare, if you extrapolate the current numbers is unsustainable. Expanding the same model to more people will just make it collapse on itself that much faster.
Still has nothing to do with the fact that avoiding the ethical issues of abortion is necessary and unavoidable. Both sides are hypocrites, and neither side will leave the issue alone. So at some point it will have to be dealt with.
right now the medical community can have a say about the ethics of it. Leave it long enough, and the only people having the argument meaningfully will likely end up being lawyers and politicians. That's what ignoring it gets you.
You have just laid out the reasons for reform. The present system is unsustainable.
The alternative to reform is to leave things as they are, and that isn't a realistic option.
Just because the system needs reform doesn't mean that any plan that comes along is better.
I've seen very little time spent on the subject of creating more doctors more cheaply. don't load up new doctors with so much debt, and you might just get cheaper medical care. Some tort reform could help too, but you won't see politicians spend much time on that as long as the trial lawyers association keeps cutting big checks for their campaigns. It'd also be nice if you regulated private insurance to the same extent as any other gambling. You set a rate for a person absed on their odds of being sick, you get stuck with that person when they are sick. Kind of like bad things happen if the house decides not to pay out in Vegas.
Kind of like with all this global warming bullshit, and the president talking big talk about math, science and technology being the future of the American economy, you hear nothing about mandating any telecommuting. Business was buying into it when Bush Sr. made it mandatory, and if anything it is even cheaper today. Long term it would decrease the cost to employ technology workers by allowing them to live in cheaper areas for less pay. They boost the economy in more areas instead of creating bubbles in concentrated places, and I'm pretty certain my cable modem has a smaller carbon footprint than a prius.
About 15 years ago I was on an ethics panel at a Planned Parenthood annual meeting. The format was the old Fred Friendly case study discussion: The moderator lays out a tough ethics case and then asks members of the panel what they would do if they were
it all depends on your point of view... I bleed from my finger , it's a tragedy...you walk into an open manhole cover and die, thats comedy.
unless you are pregnant ya need to STHU pretty sure.
Gramps
What is wrong with saying that this is a private matter best resolved privately between a patient and her physician?