In Los You "pay" To Kill Yourself

[nisakiman]

I said early on in this thread that it was a slippery slope, but there is another aspect to it also.

Let's say we have a hypothetical Mr A and Mr B.

Mr A is a virtually teetotal, non-smoking man who eats all the "right" foods sparsely,exercises regularly and generally looks after his body.

Mr B is a near alcoholic who drinks like a fish, chain smokes, eats all the "wrong" foods to excess and takes his exercise on the couch in front of the TV.

So we are saying that of course, Mr A must take priority in any health care that may be needed, having been living the "right" kind of life.

But let us look a little deeper.

Mr A, our teetotal, non-smoking clean living guy, is a supremely selfish, racist, misanthropic asshol_e who doesn't think twice about destroying peoples lives in pursuit of personal gain.

Mr B, our drinking, smoking gourmand is a jolly, friendly, forgiving chap, who spends most of his spare time working voluntarily for charitable organisations in an effort to improve some poor unfortunate's life.

I have known people who fall into both categories, so it's not entirely hypothetical.

In fact, if you'd like to look back in history just a few years, our Mr A is very similar to one Adolph Hitler. And our Mr B is not dissimilar to a Mr Winston Churchill.

So do we still prioritise Mr A?

[473geo]

Of course because when the filter is run 400,000 Mr A candidates appear before Mr B.......so he never really enters the race......

[nisakiman]

Of course because when the filter is run 400,000 Mr A candidates appear before Mr B.......so he never really enters the race......

Exactly.

That's why there should be no discrimination in health matters.

And who is to be the arbiter, and what might their political agenda be?

A slippery slope...

[473geo]

Of course because when the filter is run 400,000 Mr A candidates appear before Mr B.......so he never really enters the race......

Exactly.

That's why there should be no discrimination in health matters.

And who is to be the arbiter, and what might their political agenda be?

A slippery slope...

Quite: because the way around the filter is of course well defined............if Mr B has the means and the right connections......the filter may not apply.......

[phetaroi]

But where does it stop..

Do we also not treat the drinkers ?? Or how about the people who are crowding accident and emergency on a saturday night with cuts and fights from drinking ?? I mean they chose to go out in that environment ??

Or the guy who crashes a sportbike.. I mean he chose to ride the bike ??

Or the skydiver who breaks an ankle ??

Or the guy who has a heart attack because he has a bad diet ??

Or the guy who has a bad back because he doesnt exercise enough ??

Its easy to see everyone elses problems as 'self induced' and your own as merely circumstance.

Well, I think that is the question, although I thought it was in reference not to should be treated, but should public funds be used to treat them.

[phetaroi]

Yet, to me there's an awfully big difference between choosing to start using cocaine and choosing to drive on an interstate highway.

Certainly. But how about an abused child who, at 13 'chooses' to use cocaine to numb the pain? That child grows to be a 'half-man' addict. Shall we exercise compassion, or just get a rope and take him to the nearest hanging tree?

1. The discussion was not whether or not someone should be hanged. The discussion was whether or not the "state" should pay for medical care.

2. I'm apparently not quite as sympathetic to 13 year olds, as are you. Do you think they don't know right from wrong? I was a middle school teacher and administrator my whole adult life. Most clearly know right from wrong. The degree of judgment is the question when dealing with teens.

3. I guess compassion is a slippery slope, as well. "Aw, the poor 13 year old abused drug user." "Aw, the poor mass murderer." "Aw, the poor child molester." Where exactly does compassion end?

[way2muchcoffee]

1. The discussion was not whether or not someone should be hanged. The discussion was whether or not the "state" should pay for medical care.

Indeed. A point I made at the end of my brief conversation with neverdie. Nevertheless. A hanging tree or a street gutter (without medical attention) are not so far from each other.

2. I'm apparently not quite as sympathetic to 13 year olds, as are you. Do you think they don't know right from wrong? I was a middle school teacher and administrator my whole adult life. Most clearly know right from wrong. The degree of judgment is the question when dealing with teens.

Yes. Most 13 year olds know right from wrong. However, on the issue of substance use what is right or wrong? Society sends very mixed messages here. Alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, antidepressants, antipsychotics, ritalin, etc. All legal. Some causing harm to society. Marijuana, mushrooms, etc, not legal. Hmmm.

Can you honestly say that there is a clear right and wrong in this? Is it the legality that makes things right or wrong? Is there a moral angle? Is there a higher order right/wrong involved? If so, what is it? Their peers are telling them it's fine, great even, to experiment with substances. Pop culture, music, tv, all tend to reinforce this to some extent. There is the allure of being cool, unique, individualistic, in a stultifying suburban sameness or inner-city madness.

Teens are at an age where they are defining themselves, embracing life, experiencing, rebelling, questioning, and formulating beliefs. It is no surprise that many normal, healthy, intelligent teens engage in drug-taking. It is even less of a surprise that the unfortunate, abused or traumatized child would be even more likely to use drugs.

3. I guess compassion is a slippery slope, as well. "Aw, the poor 13 year old abused drug user." "Aw, the poor mass murderer." "Aw, the poor child molester." Where exactly does compassion end?

Compassion never ends. It is what separates us from the beasts.

Edited November 9, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[F1fanatic]

I expected that response from someone who again is trying to find fault rather than be constructive........children should of course be encouraged to participate in sport, this should actually strengthen a body thus hopefully less healthcare maintenance later!!, Children, as you are no doubt aware are much more supple boned than their older couterparts and in my opinion, (though I have not looked up data) suffer more injuries in the playground than on the sports field. But as you suggest a school sports policycover would be a suggestion - however as I would expect this to be goverment funded then why not give free healthcare while at school as is already in place in most countries - exceptions being when playing sports outside school juristiction......then yes sports insurance......still too complicated for you to grasp...????

Edit spelling....don't wish to create any further confusion... .

I would have thought my previous posts on this issue would have shown you that I'm not trying to find fault (I'm sorry you took it this way) - its something I care about as I know somebody who has been a drug addict and, after many years, FINALLY managed to start getting his life together.

Unfortunately many people cannot afford to take out private health insurance - should they be banned from taking up any activity that may result in an injury?

School sports policy cover, as you say, is paid for by the tax payer in most Western countries - but why should it be? Following your argument through, why should people without children pay for other people's children?

Don't worry, you don't need to correct your spelling - just post in a coherent way.