leeslover Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Call me cynical if you want but I think the actions of BigPharma are never in the public's interest. Just watch what happens when Obama tries to start a dialogue on universal health care in the US... You are both 100% right and, if I may come across a bit rude, 100% wrong at the same time Mart. Thank God the big companies are looking after their own interests! That's why they have produced the astonishing developments in medical science over the last century, during which time not-for-profit countries have developed no significant pharmaceutical breakthroughs worth speaking of at all (willing to be corrected on this of course). The only difference between the chemists and suppliers of say, ketchup, tarmac, computer components and so on is that the the health sector is able to use the government to allow providers to dominate the rules of the game in a way they never could in a market, in the US as in the UK.The problem is precisely one of big government, not of big business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martjs Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 You are both 100% right and, if I may come across a bit rude, 100% wrong at the same time Mart. Thank God the big companies are looking after their own interests! That's why they have produced the astonishing developments in medical science over the last century, during which time not-for-profit countries have developed no significant pharmaceutical breakthroughs worth speaking of at all (willing to be corrected on this of course). The only difference between the chemists and suppliers of say, ketchup, tarmac, computer components and so on is that the the health sector is able to use the government to allow providers to dominate the rules of the game in a way they never could in a market, in the US as in the UK.The problem is precisely one of big government, not of big business. Good points Lees but I wasn't comparing the big companies with not-for-profits. I was arguing that the pharma companies do everything for profit and none of it is in the public interest, which Ste had alluded to. If you've spent some time in the US recently you will have seen how many ads there are for any number of pills for every ailment imaginable. In fact, Bill Maher (who Ste is a fan of) talks about this on his talk show. I'll admit it has probably improved the quality of life of hay fever sufferers, children with ADD and randy old men! Lol. But I'm not convinced it's in the public interest. And I 100% agree with your point which I have highlighted. A few years ago, a colleague of mine used to travel 200+ miles to Vancouver, Canada to gets meds for his aging parents as they were a lot cheaper than buying them in the US. The US govt. refused to allow them to be bought by mail and, at the same time, warned that meds produced in Canada could be dangerous. This all paid for by the pharma lobbyists on the Hill in DC... As I said earlier, Obama's got a fight on his hands and he has no chance of winning it. The cost of health care insurance is a massive burden on employers and they are continually attempting to pass on that cost to us employees. It's the single biggest problem for the US imho. But I digress... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 Call me cynical if you want but I think the actions of BigPharma are never in the public's interest. Just watch what happens when Obama tries to start a dialogue on universal health care in the US... I heard what happened to the doctor who first made the claim but if you think about it (and here's where my super-cynicism crosses the line into conspiracy theory) they (the BMA etc.) are bound to want to discredit his claims in order to cover up a potentially huge legal and financial disaster. To paraphrase Christine Keeler in the investigation of the 'Profumo affair': "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" The same applies to any "scientific evidence" that runs contrary to Jenny McCarthy et al's theories. It's a serious and emotional issue - on the one hand I, and nobody else, wants millions of children to die of these killer diseases but at the same time let's keep an open mind on what has caused the sudden increase in the number of children with autism. I'd rather be a skeptic than a cynic mate. Cynicism by definition brings bias with it. You're assuming that big pharmaceutical companies are lying because they're big and powerful and not basing that assumption on contextual evidence. The evidence, in vast and overwhelming quantities, supports the use of MMR and debunks all claims that it is a cause of Autism. Many of the claims based on the MMR-Autism link are totally asinine. Debunk years ago by large scale blind case studies. Yet the antivax communities and J. McCarthy cling to them as fact when they're not. The supposed rise in Autism comes from the better understanding of mental health issues. Where 10 years ago a child was "problematic" or "lacked discipline" they're now quickly diagnosed with "ADHD" or "mild Autism". The facts suggest that even with this improved level of understanding regarding mental health issues the rise in autism is not drastic, in fact it's rather unintelligible. The Anti-vax community often blame a chemical called Thimerosal. This was removed from all vaccines in 1999 yet the autism rates have not fallen. How can this be explained? Here's a quote from a doctor in the Guardian from May '09 when Wales suffered a Measles outbreak: "There is no evidence of any child being harmed by the MMR vaccination but there is strong evidence that as many as one in 500 children who catch measles will die, and that another one in 500 will suffer permanent brain damage. With so many cases in the community, any child who has not received vaccination is at risk and parents must be aware of the potential consequences of not arranging immunisation for their children." Not only do these parents endanger their own children, but with the reduced herd immunity cases like the one in Wales, where the measles was able to spread rapidly through the un-vaccinated population, will become more common. This will put those unable to be vaccinated (too young, allergies, other pre-existing illnesses) at a significant risk. One community had a vaccination rate of less than 15%!! If you're to remain cynical and not skeptical I'd urge you to read this article and the articles to which it refers. And also consider how condescending and out right horrific it is for the western world to casually refuse vaccinations for these perfectly controllable diseases when people in the third world are desperate for them to stop thousands dying from totally curable illnesses such as whooping cough! I hope you take the above in the spirit of debate, and not a direct-personal response mate. Cheers, Ack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I've not logged on since you posted Martjs so I've not been able to directly reply but a lot of what Ackey said would have been in my reply. I had to study the fuss about MMR for some presentation a few years ago and it was quite clearly unsound research then (this was before the evidence that Dr. Wakefield had taken money off some autism company, or something like that, and not declared it on his paper- if he had it wouldn't have been printed (according the bloke from the journal it was printed in- and in many ways this is what got him struck off). MMR is the vaccine against Measles, Mumps and Rubella and despite being of the roughly right age I didn't get MMR this is because I had the measles vaccine when I was 4 months old, I had the mumps before I'd even gone to school and being a boy I can't get rubella. (My Dad who is the retired expert on this locally actually mentioned MMR in 1987/8 when it came out in 1990- so trust me if there was any need for me to have it I would have done). I ended up having to have a rubella vaccine because I couldn't go on to a clinical area (i.e. a hosiptal) without one and the rubella vaccine was cheaper than MMR (for a big part because you only need 1 rubella vaccine). Yes there are separate vaccines for each of the components but that doens't mean its any cheaper- one MMR vaccine is not enough (where as 1 measles vaccine is and so is 1 rubella). Companies spend money on multi-vaccines not because they are cheaper but because they sell more- its bloody hard to vaccinate people in the back of beyond in the third world and its even harder if you have to carry 3 times as many vaccines. Many people won't vaccionate thier boy against Rubella (as it doesn't affect them), their girl against mumps (as one of the most severe complications, sterility, only affects boys (and men- much more so- so if you haven't had the mumps and not had a vaccine I'd get one)) and the uptake rate wasn't high for measles. Mumps can be very serious when you are young- it can cause an encephalitis (brain swelling) where you come out of Intensive Care without serious damage if you are lucky, a lot of the serious complications occur if you are unfortunate to catch it as an adult (or pubertal) male. There has been a big problem in the people who are just old enough to have missed MMR vaccines routinely as a child, huge outbreaks of measles and outbreaks of mumps (one outbreak of mumps laid off about 5% of my uni a few years ago). (So if you havent had an MMR I'd get one- its free and the doctors will love you for it (they get paid extra for stuff like that)). I will amdit there is a link with autism and the MMR vaccine, autism quite regualrly presents itself around 18 months (at a point a child is really starting communicating), guess when we vaccinate children with the MMR, yes you've guessed it around 18 months. 12 people, yes 12, not enough to fill a minibus, noticed that not long after they had a child vaccinated with MMR that child was diagnosed (or probably more accuately presented with initial signs) of autism. Pure coincidence, nothing more, has got a dodgy doctor (someone that his own brother- a doctor in the North East doesn't like talking about) infamy. Oh and by the way you can still get separate vaccines in this country but you can't get them on the NHS. I wouldn't mind betting the same is true in the States (only you can't get them on insurance). Yes, health companies make loads and loads of money, but they don't make it on vaccines for stuff like Measles etc. (in many ways this is because after a while different health companies can produce the same thing as it comes off patent), they make the money on other stuff and if governments like ours were run properly they wouldn't make as much money (the insurance people don't give a crap in the states they pass on their costs to the people) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 Mumps can be very serious when you are young- it can cause an encephalitis (brain swelling) where you come out of Intensive Care without serious damage if you are lucky, a lot of the serious complications occur if you are unfortunate to catch it as an adult (or pubertal) male. I guess this is where my passionate defence of vaccination comes from. As a child I had a severe egg allergy and so I couldn't have the MMR vaccination. As a result I contracted Mumps at the age of 4 and gave it to my 10 month old sister. We were both fortunate to come out of it with no long term effects, however I was head to toe in bumps and was considered a serious case. Back then the autism link was not a factor, however it frightens the bejesus out of me that if in the next 5-10 years I have kids and they too have a youthful egg allergy (I grew out of it in my teens, which is quite common) then they will not be vaccinated. If these people continue to succeed with their misinformation and out right deception of the general public then they're putting those who are not fortunate enough to be vaccinated at a significantly increased risk of illness, serious brain damage or even death (through the previously mentioned decrease in herd-immunity factor). I'm a skeptic, this issue has caught my passion for the above reasons. But if the evidence was not there then I wouldn't support it in the way I do. There are no certainties in life, that's what keeps it interesting, but in this case the overwhelming evidential support is for vaccinating your children and protecting not just them but those of the community as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 The supposed rise in Autism comes from the better understanding of mental health issues. Where 10 years ago a child was "problematic" or "lacked discipline" they're now quickly diagnosed with "ADHD" or "mild Autism". absolutely correct. my eldest son has asberger syndrome,part of the autism spectrum. he was diagnosed at 4 years old(now 11)and thats because its being more easier to spot the symptoms far better than 20 years ago. all the relative predictions have happened concerning his mannerisms etc,and though it can be frustrating sometime,you learn and understand with him. also my nephew (sisters side) also has asberger,but is more extreme(not sure if he is autistic officially),and he really is a struggle. the fact 2 kids in close family have a kid each with it makes me wonder if theres an hereditary link. i question my own state of mind sometimes also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 absolutely correct. my eldest son has asberger syndrome,part of the autism spectrum. he was diagnosed at 4 years old(now 11)and thats because its being more easier to spot the symptoms far better than 20 years ago. all the relative predictions have happened concerning his mannerisms etc,and though it can be frustrating sometime,you learn and understand with him. also my nephew (sisters side) also has asberger,but is more extreme(not sure if he is autistic officially),and he really is a struggle. the fact 2 kids in close family have a kid each with it makes me wonder if theres an hereditary link. i question my own state of mind sometimes also. I couldn't claim to know a great deal about Autism beyond it's basic developmental differences from those deemed 'normal'. However like you say JP, the current problem is the lack of understanding of its causes. It may be that in 20 years we'll have an established and comprehensive knowledge of the causes and that they may indeed be genetic. However for future generations to benefit from our learning the anti-science vitriol needs to be fought against, as it does nothing but damage the reputations of scientists investigating the causes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 another point i missed is that a huge majority of those diagnosed are male. i honestly do think its genetic/hereditary. i've searched my soul for years as to asking if i was in the same boat as my son and getting a check,but hey,i've learn't to live with myself after 43+ years,whats going to change...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 another point i missed is that a huge majority of those diagnosed are male. i honestly do think its genetic/hereditary. i've searched my soul for years as to asking if i was in the same boat as my son and getting a check,but hey,i've learn't to live with myself after 43+ years,whats going to change...? I think you make another good point. Soul Searching. You've come, over time, to live with the cards you were dealt, so to speak. Whilst others may, be it in a desperate search for answers or a need to lay blame somewhere, take on these illogical arguments as fact. If someone is in a position of weakness they're at their most susceptible. I would not oppose an anti-vax stand point if it was just one person's view and they were keeping it to themselves. However to offer this 'explanation' to someone in such a desperate place knowing they will be not fully able to look logically at it is at best immoral and offensive and at worst dangerous and possibly deadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 just to finish off.. that woman is dangerous-her views offensive and degrading,and a bullet is worth more than her life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 just to finish off.. that woman is dangerous-her views offensive and degrading,and a bullet is worth more than her life. here-here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 However for future generations to benefit from our learning the anti-science vitriol needs to be fought against, as it does nothing but damage the reputations of scientists investigating the causes. Future generations would more likely benefit from a lower, sustainable population than they would from further scientific and medical developments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 Future generations would more likely benefit from a lower, sustainable population than they would from further scientific and medical developments. Whilst completely irrelevant in the science/anti-science debate I'd still not be in agreement with this. Whilst I agree that in principal a smaller world population would be more manageable and sustainable it will never, ever, ever (ad infinitum) be an appropriate approach. Who's decision would it be to determine who can and can not procreate? We already have wars over fictitious books from 2000 years ago. How the hell would we not have wars over population quota's? Further, scientific advancements such as GM crops have enabled us to feed hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people in a significantly more sustainable way than science could ever have predicted. Vaccinations have enabled us to save millions of lives a year. Sanitation and understanding of diseases too has saved millions of lives a year. Science is always the answer. It can be manipulated and misused but that is human nature. We can not control everyone we must live with the wrongs in our world and stand up to them. Support and fight for the freedoms, the advancements and the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Future generations would more likely benefit from a lower, sustainable population than they would from further scientific and medical developments. It's scientific and economic progress (achieved in an unplanned and spontanous way via the market process) which has made the current population levels possible. Turn the tap off on science and you will achieve lower populations, in many instances far sooner than you would imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Whilst completely irrelevant in the science/anti-science debate I'd still not be in agreement with this. Whilst I agree that in principal a smaller world population would be more manageable and sustainable it will never, ever, ever (ad infinitum) be an appropriate approach. Who's decision would it be to determine who can and can not procreate? We already have wars over fictitious books from 2000 years ago. How the hell would we not have wars over population quota's? Further, scientific advancements such as GM crops have enabled us to feed hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people in a significantly more sustainable way than science could ever have predicted. Vaccinations have enabled us to save millions of lives a year. Sanitation and understanding of diseases too has saved millions of lives a year. Science is always the answer. It can be manipulated and misused but that is human nature. We can not control everyone we must live with the wrongs in our world and stand up to them. Support and fight for the freedoms, the advancements and the truth. Of course it has some relevance. Science/medicine/technology is responsible for over-population which indirectly results in the majority of the worlds problems. I wasn't suggesting an embargo on how many kids you can have - the problem results not from too many births but from too few deaths. I would suggest abandoning the pursuit of further medical advances because we simply can't cater for all the lives they (impressively) save whilst maintaining a quality of life for everybody. I don't know the specific answers but at least I've recognised the problem, which is more than can be said for those who invest vast resources into cancer research, for example. The miracle cures of today are great for the individuals concerned (and especially those faced with "dying too young") but they are harmful to the world/species. Science needs to find answers to the array of problems over-population creates before trying to save yet more lives. Clinical but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 Of course it has some relevance. Science/medicine/technology is responsible for over-population which indirectly results in the majority of the worlds problems. I wasn't suggesting an embargo on how many kids you can have - the problem results not from too many births but from too few deaths. I would suggest abandoning the pursuit of further medical advances because we simply can't cater for all the lives they (impressively) save whilst maintaining a quality of life for everybody. I don't know the specific answers but at least I've recognised the problem, which is more than can be said for those who invest vast resources into cancer research, for example. The miracle cures of today are great for the individuals concerned (and especially those faced with "dying too young") but they are harmful to the world/species. Science needs to find answers to the array of problems over-population creates before trying to save yet more lives. Clinical but true. I'd argue it has no relevance to the science-anti-science debate because the anti-science community is not one which opposes the use of science but instead creates pseudo-scientific evidence of their own to support their products or opinions (such as JMcC or those who support homoeopathy). But for your argument I'd say you're asking for a species to stop trying to be the best it can be. You're asking that the most advanced species on the plant abandons what has made it the dominant species - its ability to learn, to educate beyond survival, to enhance its living standards not through necessity but through desire. Perhaps this is not the best aspect of humanity but it's what makes us human. You're asking for the impossible, IMO. And whilst it may be clinical and even noble, it's self defeating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I'd argue it has no relevance to the science-anti-science debate because the anti-science community is not one which opposes the use of science but instead creates pseudo-scientific evidence of their own to support their products or opinions (such as JMcC or those who support homoeopathy). But for your argument I'd say you're asking for a species to stop trying to be the best it can be. You're asking that the most advanced species on the plant abandons what has made it the dominant species - its ability to learn, to educate beyond survival, to enhance its living standards not through necessity but through desire. Perhaps this is not the best aspect of humanity but it's what makes us human. You're asking for the impossible, IMO. And whilst it may be clinical and even noble, it's self defeating. Ah, I had been reading between the lines and missed your point. Interesting words in the second paragraph. I commend our species trying to the best it can - I'm not asking it to abandon the traits which made us dominant. Science and medicine has a massive place in society I just feel that we have reached a point where further developments will ultimately be our downfall, if that point hasn't already been passed. We are parasites of the Earth, totally self-obsessed. All I hope for is some foresight with regards to major medical/scientific developments* and a look at the bigger picture. * recent example - 'man-made sperm'....what the is that and what the do we need it for!?!? Sure, it makes a few (ridiculous) individuals happy....and gives a doctor/scientist somewhere a sense of well-being, achievement and wealth. However stuff like this will bite our species as a whole on the arse. We're getting too big for our own boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 Ah, I had been reading between the lines and missed your point. * recent example - 'man-made sperm'....what the is that and what the do we need it for!?!? Sure, it makes a few (ridiculous) individuals happy....and gives a doctor/scientist somewhere a sense of well-being, achievement and wealth. However stuff like this will bite our species as a whole on the arse. We're getting too big for our own boots. Often the problem with forums, it's easy to lose track of someone's tone or subject path. Either way it's a fun debate... Re your * comment, I'd agree that certain scientific 'breakthroughs' are for selfish and somewhat irrational reasons. I've not read much more than the headlines on this sperm breakthrough, so I may be way off the mark, but the grasp I had was that whilst the RedTops ran this as the "end of the need for a man" sensationalist BS they usually do it's actual application was more for men who'd suffered irreparable damage to their testicles and so could not produce sperm. This artificial sperm would be created and used to give them children who were genetically theirs - where previously they couldn't have them. Now, I agree this raises the moral question that with over crowding the way it is there perhaps should be encouragement for them to adopt, however the scientific advancement in this case is a valid one and not quite as irrational as the RedTop press would like to make out. Here's an excellent Guardian article with an example of how the RedTops use scientific studies to their own ends. An interesting aside from the BigPharma argument is the role of the Media in science and the abuse many scientific studies suffer at the hands of journalists willing to make a story contrary to the facts they're quoting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I too don't know much about the sperm thing, I heard about it and my response was.... You yourself raised the moral question concerning overcrowding and adoption that I would have done, so I'm stumped now, although the answer is obvious. I dunno, the world's a ridiculous one in many ways. Oh well.... P.S Good link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 I dunno, the world's a ridiculous one in many ways. Oh well... That's the most truthful thing anyone's said in three pages on this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 That's the most truthful thing anyone's said in three pages on this! Aside from my assertation that medicine will be the end of us all. At least somebody's onto Rudemedic and his evil sorts.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martjs Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I guess this is where my passionate defence of vaccination comes from. As a child I had a severe egg allergy and so I couldn't have the MMR vaccination. As a result I contracted Mumps at the age of 4 and gave it to my 10 month old sister. We were both fortunate to come out of it with no long term effects, however I was head to toe in bumps and was considered a serious case. Back then the autism link was not a factor, however it frightens the bejesus out of me that if in the next 5-10 years I have kids and they too have a youthful egg allergy (I grew out of it in my teens, which is quite common) then they will not be vaccinated. If these people continue to succeed with their misinformation and out right deception of the general public then they're putting those who are not fortunate enough to be vaccinated at a significantly increased risk of illness, serious brain damage or even death (through the previously mentioned decrease in herd-immunity factor). I'm a skeptic, this issue has caught my passion for the above reasons. But if the evidence was not there then I wouldn't support it in the way I do. There are no certainties in life, that's what keeps it interesting, but in this case the overwhelming evidential support is for vaccinating your children and protecting not just them but those of the community as a whole. Ok, thanks Ste and Rudemedic for the detailed arguments. I'll hold my hands up and say I was wrong. In my defence, my "knowledge" of this subject is based on articles read in Private Eye many years ago. So maybe I should have either done some more recent research or stayed out of the discussion. I was curious, though, about what people thought about the subject and so dived in... By the way, I try not to take any response personal - especially if it's correcting my misinformation. In general, I try not to be too cynical and remain sceptical but I find it hard at times - perhaps big Pharma could help with that! Interesting what Stitch has to say about the advancement of science/medicine... When I was in the UK last week I helped my 83 year old mum take 8 tablets for her many ailments contracted over the years. I have no idea what they are for (although I know she suffers from angina amongst other things). She lives in a nursing home in Chadderton and recently has talked about not being around for long. Mentally she is fine but physically she has to be lifted out of bed into a chair and into a wheelchair if she's lucky enough to be well enough to leave her room. My dad takes about 12 tablets a day and again I don't know what they are for. He lives in a sheltered flat and visits my mum every day. The point of all this is I was thinking about their individual quality of life. The advancement of science has enabled many people to live a lot longer than they would have done in the past. My wife said something to me years ago that struck a chord - it was something like: it's easy for children of sick aging parents to want them to be around for them but if the parents are suffering it could be seen as "selfish" to keep them around for their (the children) benefit... This leads to another tangent on this topic would be the arguments for and against euthanasia... FInally, "Sicko" (by one of my heroes Michael Moore) was on TV again last night and I watched some of it - it depresses me every time but it's compelling viewing for me. The documentary makes the NHS, Canadian and French medical systems look fantastic. Any thoughts on this? A separate thread may be necessary. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Ok, thanks Ste and Rudemedic for the detailed arguments. I'll hold my hands up and say I was wrong. In my defence, my "knowledge" of this subject is based on articles read in Private Eye many years ago. So maybe I should have either done some more recent research or stayed out of the discussion. I was curious, though, about what people thought about the subject and so dived in... By the way, I try not to take any response personal - especially if it's correcting my misinformation. In general, I try not to be too cynical and remain sceptical but I find it hard at times - perhaps big Pharma could help with that! Interesting what Stitch has to say about the advancement of science/medicine... When I was in the UK last week I helped my 83 year old mum take 8 tablets for her many ailments contracted over the years. I have no idea what they are for (although I know she suffers from angina amongst other things). She lives in a nursing home in Chadderton and recently has talked about not being around for long. Mentally she is fine but physically she has to be lifted out of bed into a chair and into a wheelchair if she's lucky enough to be well enough to leave her room. My dad takes about 12 tablets a day and again I don't know what they are for. He lives in a sheltered flat and visits my mum every day. The point of all this is I was thinking about their individual quality of life. The advancement of science has enabled many people to live a lot longer than they would have done in the past. My wife said something to me years ago that struck a chord - it was something like: it's easy for children of sick aging parents to want them to be around for them but if the parents are suffering it could be seen as "selfish" to keep them around for their (the children) benefit... This leads to another tangent on this topic would be the arguments for and against euthanasia... FInally, "Sicko" (by one of my heroes Michael Moore) was on TV again last night and I watched some of it - it depresses me every time but it's compelling viewing for me. The documentary makes the NHS, Canadian and French medical systems look fantastic. Any thoughts on this? A separate thread may be necessary. Cheers. Euthanasia is a total minefield but I can certainly see it is justifibile, but its very tricky to kill people who aren't dead. There are many causes for young people to have miracle operations who would probably be better off being left alone but its a parents right to say I want my child to have this operation which only has a 10% survival rate and even then they might be worse off than they were previously but 10% is still better than 0% which are their chances without the operation and its the same for other ill people. I could make an documentary that makes the NHS look compared to the American system, if you set out to film something for a specific purpose its easy to ignore all the stuff which doesn't fit in with that purpose. In all fairness to the NHS it is a much more fair system and barring 'elective' surgery (your joint operations and the like) their isn't a lot of private work that gets done. Some people may know how to work the system but if Bernie Ecclestone wants to see a cardiologist for a heart problem and Joe Bloggs from Oldham wants to see a Cardiologist my money's on Joe Bloggs seeing one first. In the States if you have the money your in luck, if you are poor then you are in trouble and if your health insurance is a and the person on the other end of the phone doesn't understand what's going on then you are in trouble. Doctors are bright people, most of them have done Maths at A-Level (and most got an A), Doctors can do some economics, its when accountants and politicans (who for the most part are qualified lawyers- there are very few MPs from professions allied to medicine- and I know one of those has no say in health policy) start getting involved with targets or budget problems that the NHS is made to look and its the same all round the world when money gets in the way things go tits up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martjs Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Euthanasia is a total minefield but I can certainly see it is justifibile, but its very tricky to kill people who aren't dead. There are many causes for young people to have miracle operations who would probably be better off being left alone but its a parents right to say I want my child to have this operation which only has a 10% survival rate and even then they might be worse off than they were previously but 10% is still better than 0% which are their chances without the operation and its the same for other ill people. I could make an documentary that makes the NHS look compared to the American system, if you set out to film something for a specific purpose its easy to ignore all the stuff which doesn't fit in with that purpose. In all fairness to the NHS it is a much more fair system and barring 'elective' surgery (your joint operations and the like) their isn't a lot of private work that gets done. Some people may know how to work the system but if Bernie Ecclestone wants to see a cardiologist for a heart problem and Joe Bloggs from Oldham wants to see a Cardiologist my money's on Joe Bloggs seeing one first. In the States if you have the money your in luck, if you are poor then you are in trouble and if your health insurance is a and the person on the other end of the phone doesn't understand what's going on then you are in trouble. Doctors are bright people, most of them have done Maths at A-Level (and most got an A), Doctors can do some economics, its when accountants and politicans (who for the most part are qualified lawyers- there are very few MPs from professions allied to medicine- and I know one of those has no say in health policy) start getting involved with targets or budget problems that the NHS is made to look and its the same all round the world when money gets in the way things go tits up. Fair point highlighted above and I admit that "Sicko" is very simplistic but, as you probably know, you have to keep things simple for the vast majority of Americans to understand it. Drawing on my own experience of US health insurance, and Moore's emphasis in the documentary, it's how bad the system is for those of us who have health insurance that's galling. I've paid $500 deductible ("excess") to have an MRI, $500 for surgery and $500 for the anaesthetist (sp.?). Not to mention the "out-of-pocket" costs you incur when the insurance company only pays 80% here and there and then there's the outright denial of coverage... I know people at work in their 70s who can't affoird to retire because they will lose their medical insurance and they (or their spouse) need a lot of medication. When I was in the UK, it was de rigueur to slag off the NHS. I'm not sure how it's perceived now but I've read a lot of bad things about PFI's in... ...you guessed it: Private Eye... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OminousPoultry Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 However this is a side issue. The scientific studies and evidence - the facts - support nothing other than MMR being NOT responsible for autism. To the extent that the British doctor who first made the claim has been widely discredited, sued and struck off. Andrew Wakefield is the subject of an ongoing GMC investigation - I don't believe he has been struck off. I am not sure if he has been sued. Whilst the assertion might be correct that "the facts - support nothing other than MMR being NOT responsible for autism" - the MMR vaccine has been implicated in Hannah Poling's case, and the US Federal courts agree. It's very easy to intellectualise these matters on a football forum but please don't trample over facts to pursue the debate and don't forget the human story behind the headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.