Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: are advances in healthcare ethical?

  1. #1 are advances in healthcare ethical? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    15
    Here's a quick thought- Are advances in healthcare ethical?

    Obviously! But, with the world's population nearing 7 billion, this tells us that major advances in healthcare and medicine which no doubt helped this population rise, are adding to a strain on natural resources, pollution and overgrowth. When you look at things on a global scale, and knowing that humans are intended to live/die, when does medicine and healthcare go from prolonging life, to slowly destroying the world by creating ways of becoming near-immortal?[/b]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Current advances in health care are most affecting people over 35. 100 years back, those advances were working toward cutting the terrible toll of everyone, including the young, mainly by infectious illnesses. Chlorination of water and widespread vaccination against disease was what happened then.

    Today, with the main infectious killers of the young under control, more effort goes into stopping the big killers of the elderly. In terms of the OP, this will have little effect on total world population, since it is saving those who are past reproductive age.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Overpopulation is indeed the source of most evil that todays world are suffering from, however to adress a problem you must go to the ROOT of it, which isnt a medical but a cultural problem.

    Consider a tribal village way back in time. Lets say a village had a population of 30-40 humans. Everyone would have a role and be important to the survival of the tribe. Every human life would be valued and mourned over.

    Now consider todays world. A meteor hits a major city and what happens? For most people its loss is meaningless and irrelevant because the human population has grown to such ridicolous proportions. (thinking practicly not emotionally)

    Unfortunatly there is little to none human population control. And even SUGGESTING it for a politician would be political suicide because survival is our most extreme instinct by far and "moral" and "ethics" would instantly be used as excuses.

    Though i have no love for the crimes of nazi germany under WW2 their idea of population control and letting the beautifull and smartest breed is a logical and smart choise for the long term survival of our species. But things now arent like that, we breed out of control and the damage is probarly beyond repair allready. We have consumed so much resources and crushed our planet to its knees and it is way out of control.

    Abortion seem to be a sensitive topic. Saying abortion is murder is like saying castrating a guy is the murder of thousands of people that COULD have existed, or saying that burning down some trees is destroying a house.

    The only country that seem to have half a brain is china that have a 1 child policy now. Unfortunatly the population of women are sinking and men increasing because boys are preferable for economic reasons. This problem shouldnt have existed to begin with as population control shouldve been enforced long before that.

    My suggestions:

    -Each family on earth must provide proof that they have enough resources to provide for the children they want to have within their respected nations.

    - Accidential pregnancy or unwilling (rape) pregnancy should be allowed abortion with no questions asked, if the woman wants to have the baby she must prove she can provide for it.

    - If people wants to die they should be allowed to do so with no questions asked. Euthanasia AKA mercy killing for the sick and so on was considered good in the old days. But suddently with religion and a twisted version of morals it isnt "right" anymore. Letting dying people live through hellish pain is suddently the "good" thing? What can i say, stupidity sure rules us these days.

    So... Why:

    To many people leads to poverty, poverty leads to crime and suffering. To many people also leads to countless other problems like pollution and extreme strain on resources. The more people there is, then less value each one has - fact - live with it. If being naive gives you the illusion that your life holds value then please continue doing so, and when you die and 1 billion people is ready to replace your meaningless purpose on earth ill laugh at your funeral.


    Again medicine and health care isnt the problem at all, overpopulation is. The source of this problem is birth and pregnancy, unfortunatly instinct wins over logic in todays society and therefore our civilization is doomed.

    If anyone feels unoriginal enough to flame me by going "As if you are worth more / anything" save yourself the time. This isnt about me, this isnt about you. Its about what has to be done to save our planet and the human race.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: are advances in healthcare ethical? 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty2406
    Here's a quick thought- Are advances in healthcare ethical?
    To answer this question directly. According to modern western culture ethics and values today , yes.

    According to me, if the population was at a bearable level. Lets say around 3 billions - yes.

    Overpopulation is a problem that needs to be fixed by the root which is birth and pregnancy.


    To fix overpopulation by manipulating health care in any way is like twisting and bending a branch on a large tree. You have to think long term cause and effect.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Raziell

    Your ideas on population control are outdated and unacceptable in the modern world.

    For a start, the population explosion is over. Third world countries had a fertility rate of 5.5 only 50 years ago. Today it is 2.5. If we look at the whole world, fertility is only 2.1, which is mere replacement rate.

    Certainly, and temporarily, the population is increasing, but this is due to the large numbers of young people now reaching reproductive age, from the previous explosion. It is not due to high fertility. The United Nations has done its homework. Based on current data, they project that the population will grow to 9 billion by 2040, and then stabilise.
    www.un.org/popin

    In other words, no draconian measures are needed to control the population. It will stabilise under existing trends, and because of factors that are already in place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Raziell

    Your ideas on population control are outdated and unacceptable in the modern world.

    For a start, the population explosion is over. Third world countries had a fertility rate of 5.5 only 50 years ago. Today it is 2.5. If we look at the whole world, fertility is only 2.1, which is mere replacement rate.

    Certainly, and temporarily, the population is increasing, but this is due to the large numbers of young people now reaching reproductive age, from the previous explosion. It is not due to high fertility. The United Nations has done its homework. Based on current data, they project that the population will grow to 9 billion by 2040, and then stabilise.
    www.un.org/popin

    In other words, no draconian measures are needed to control the population. It will stabilise under existing trends, and because of factors that are already in place.
    1) Do you have a better idea then? Im just trying to think of the lesser evil to actually stop this madness.

    2) 9 billions and THEN stabilise? 6-7 billion people is allready way to many people for the earth to handle? (Again, thinking long term resources and pollution)

    3) I really hope you are right! Though i still think our current world population is so big we will do irrepairable damage to our planet before we achieve the technology to halt/stop pollution and the other pile of problems caused by overpopulation.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    15
    The point that I was trying to get across was that Medical advances have lead to this overpopulation, in the 1950's population was around 2.8bn. In terms of advances in technology from 1950's to now, it has been significantly based around medical breakthroughs, ie vaccination, sterilisation, transplantation, genetic based technology and whatnot. There were no limitation on number of children allowed or other restrictions on births. In fact, I am inclined to agree and say that methods of this manner are unethical and immoral. However, in 1950, and prior to that, if you had too many children to cope with, the simplicity was, they were more likely die early. Whereas now, problems like this, hand themselves into social and political realms. Allowing families to keep on having children with government funding. But, on the other hand, I guess managing who gets what treatment or medicine and who doesn't is totally unethical as well. Which leads me into thinking that a choice needs to be made about what method to take! "The lesser of two evils" quite right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    I make no statement about whether high population is good or bad. That judgement is, in fact, irrelevent. We face and handle the situation as it is. We do not wave a magic wand and create a situation as we think it should be.

    Current world population is 6.7 billion and will reach (according to the United Nations) 9 billion before stabilising. We can warble on as much as we like about whether 9 billion is good or bad. it is what we are gonna get!

    Instead, we should be devoting our efforts to making sure those 9 billion get the best life that can be provided, and that as little environmental damage is done as possible in caring for them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The problem isn't really global overpopulation, as skeptic has pointed out that is unlikely to happen.

    There are some issues of localized overpopulation in India and South East Asia.

    More of an immediate issue is low birth rate in the developed world. Countries like Japan are scrambling to convince people to have more babies because they don't have a replenishing birth rate and refuse to let in immigrants.

    Likewise, most of Western Europe and Canada has no replenishing birth rate and population growth is due entirely to immigration.

    As quality of life increases I wouldn't be surprised if we see a drop 50 years after we reach that 9 billion. The same issue of people refusing to have children will likely affect those in other parts of the world too.

    There really isn't that much of a lack of space outside of Southern Asia and Europe. Most of the rest of the world still has plenty of open space. We could easily grow enough food to feed the entire world today, it's just not economically viable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman AlphaMuDelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    24
    Ethical concerns are irrelevant. When we are overpopulated, better to preserve the young and useful than the elderly and weak. Gas anyone older than 60 who is not a prolific contributor to science and repurpose them, taking any genes that could grant immunities to conditions, any organs that could be transplanted, any blood that could be transfused, et cetera. Follow this procedure until we have advanced enough to make ourselves all but immortal and then we colonise new worlds - by polarising the human community to the gifted scientists and the workers, we should have developed the means to colonise new worlds by the time we achieve immunity to physical ailments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Yes, yes, and we can have death panels to decide who's useful. And you can be on the first spaceship. Don't forget to pack a lunch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman AlphaMuDelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Yes, yes, and we can have death panels to decide who's useful.
    Nay, we give each person a carefully calculated value, derived from their achievements and abilities (measured psychometrically and so forth, and I don['t mean IQ - something better than that), which directly corresponds to what treatment they are afforded.

    And you can be on the first spaceship. Don't forget to pack a lunch.
    Hey, if you'd let me explore space to get rid of me, I'd take you up on the offer. Might need two lunches though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •