Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘doctors’

Canadian health careCanada’s Supreme Court ruled on October 18, 2013 that a Toronto man who has been on life support for three years cannot be removed from it without the consent of his family, despite doctors deciding it is no longer medically necessary.

Two Sunnybrook doctors have lost their bid to unilaterally remove a severely brain damaged patient from life support, but they still have the option of going to a provincial tribunal to try to overrule his family’s wishes, the Supreme Court has decided.

What I find shameful about the doctors in question, is not that they are arguing that life support is no longer necessary, but that they argue that “they were not actually providing medical treatment by keeping the man on life support.”

Of course providing life support is medical treatment. It’s not free to make, purchase or operate those machines, and providing related support.

Their argument strikes me as a cynical attempt to end life support, perhaps under a completely valid medical basis, under false pretenses, because of the constraints of the law.

However, I also find it shocking that the Supreme Court decision would claim a right to medical treatment at the involuntary expense of others. The cynicism is furthered by that “right” subjected to being arbitrarily denied on the basis of the decision of a subsequent government panel, which perfectly illustrates the inability of governments to grant positive rights.

I am sympathetic to the concern of “death panels”, which is what the provincial government panel effectively can serve as. Also, doctors can even be pushed into that role because of pressures in the socialized health care system, and this is exactly why I support private money for primary health care in Canada, which is what all other countries in the world allow for, except for Cuba and North Korea.

For more on health care, see my articles:

1) The first step in health care reform: Recognizing that health care is not a right

2) Ron Paul right on health Care: It’s not a right and it’s not a privilege — it’s a good

3) Stefan Molyneux reveals the perverse incentives in the U.S. health care system

Read Full Post »

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-07-18/aids-conference-vienna.html?fullstory

“The HIV test is an absolute crime. You can test positive for HIV if you have 67 conditions… TB, syphilis, malaria, invasive mycosis,” says Joan Shenton.

“While you might think there are only a handful of scientists who doubt the HIV/AIDS theory, here at the conference is a list of around 2,500 names – all scientists who challenge the classic definition,” said doctor Uta Santos-Konig.

“We are all scientists and medical doctors, why should we not be able to discuss?” she added. “I am astonished that the reaction is sometimes so aggressive.”

See RethinkingAIDS.com for more.

Read Full Post »

The first step in my health care reform plan is simply this: recognizing that health care is not a right.

How can I be so cruel as to say that? How can anyone be so cruel as to say otherwise?

To say that health care is a right means that you have a right to someone else’s labour. Do others have a right to your labour, or is your labour your own, to use it as you see fit?

Communism is a system that holds that some have the right to the labour of others. Communism co-founder, Karl Marx, stated in 1875: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I understand the well-meaning intentions of those who say that health care is, and should be, a right. However, a right is an entitlement. How can you be entitled to the work of a doctor, a nurse, or any other health professional, as a matter of birth?

If health care truly was a right, then that was quite the oversight by the Founding Fathers of the United States, in not including it in the Bill of Rights in 1789. But it wasn’t an oversight. They recognized that it wasn’t a right.

The consequence of recognizing that health care is not a right, I believe, is to put the focus back where it properly belongs, as to who is ultimately responsible for their own health — the individual. There are those who are unable to properly care for themselves, as there has been since the dawn of time. Those people should be appropriately cared for, as matter of public interest, not as a matter of right, as well as all others. But just because it’s in the public interest to take care of all individuals, doesn’t make it a right, nor necessitate the method of care.

These days, health care is often taken to mean expensive diagnostic equipment, treatment with expensive drugs, expensive private health care plans with high overhead, and unsustainable government health plans, such as Medicare, which, as I previously documented, cost 744% more by 1990 than previously estimated at its inception, in 1965.

Modern health care has regressed from the basic principles of the father of modern medicine, Hippocrates, who stated: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.

Instead of a proactive, preventative approach to health by the individual, the focus has regressed to a reactive, expensive third-party approach, and this must change.

Read Full Post »