Should chemotherapy be "rare"? How about insulin shots? Sutures?

[Recursion]

Antibiotics? Bariatric surgery? MRI scans? Prozac? The Heimlich maneuver? Knee taping? Kocher's Method? Vasectomy? Cauterization? The Wagner-Jauregg treatment? Protein therapy? Vitamin A therapy? Talk therapy? Placebo therapy? Reflexlocomotion? Myringoplasty? Rhinoplasty? Electroconvulsive therapy?

What? No? Just that one medical intervention, then, should be "rare"? Hmm....

(Props to Wikipedia's "Medical Treatments" category page...)

[Nye Bevan]

1. I would love it if emphysema became rare, due to most people giving up smoking.

I would love it if cirrhosis of the liver became rare, due to fewer people drinking alcohol to excess.

I would love it if quadruple bypasses became rare, due to people eating healthily and exercising more.

I would love it if chemotherapy became rare due to scientists discovering how people can avoid getting cancer.

I would love it if tooth fillings became rare because everyone started brushing their teeth correctly and regularly.

I would love it if AIDs became rare due to people using protection and not sharing needles.

And it would be great if improved access to contraception and better sex education resulted in abortions becoming rarer.

Perhaps you did not fully think through your analogy?

[Recursion]

7. An intervention should be as common as its indication (nt)

[nomorenomore08]

35. But none of those - other than contraceptives and clean needles - have ever been restricted by law

with the sole purpose of there being fewer of them. That's the difference.

[RainDog]

37. The point, as I see it

Is this "prescription" for a medical situation is not applied in cases like those you mention.

That's the point - that women are singled out because, in this nation, the number of whackos out there who think women should not even have access to birth control changes the conversation in relation to a medical issue that has to do with females and reproduction.

[The Straight Story]

2. What should be rare in this country is the erosion of personal freedoms

Which includes, but is sure not limited to, medical decisions between a person and their doctor.

The problem I see with it all is simple: Consistency across the board on keeping the government out of our personal choices.

When we start to justify such incursions we lose the ability to defend such incursions on other issues relating to personal freedoms.

[Nye Bevan]

3. Do you disagree with Hillary?

I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare. And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.
I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm

[Recursion]

8. I do there, certainly (nt)

[The Straight Story]

13. Safe is one thing. What does rare mean in this case?

Rare because people have control over whether they get pregnant (in most cases) and should make better choices when it comes to sex? Rare because she feels abortion is wrong?

The frequency is not the issue to address, but the right to have the medical procedure is. And the right for it not to be the business of anyone outside of the patient and doctor.

Note she uses the word 'needs' to be rare. It probably would be rare if we did more on sex ed, made birth control more easily available, etc.

But I could care less what a politician wants when it comes to my (or others') freedoms. Food, drink, smoking, pregnancy, viagra, what the hell ever - none of those things should be freedoms we have to earn, fight for, or be punished for engaging in.

Yet we have types in both parties who want to use brute force and punishment to force others to live their lives a certain way and only be allowed to make choices they deem fit (to appease their god of money, or some other god).

I have been in relationships where others are controlling, I don't want to be in one like that with the people with power who have all the weapons and can remove you to jail and curtail even more freedoms. And I find it sad that so many will not only march right into such a prison but beg those in power to make it bigger and add more cells.

[nomorenomore08]

36. I don't always agree with you, but this is a great post!

[Warren DeMontague]

17. It wouldn't be the first time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

[Iggo]

54. Yes.

[pitbullgirl1965]

43. Medical decisions between law enforcement and doctors you mean!

A man was raped and tortured by medical personal because LEO thought he had narcotics in his anus.
Seriously this is triggering stuff.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/05/1253274/-Absolutely-unimaginable-this-could-happen-in-America

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. The goal is chemotherapy should be rare. As in not needed

Don't you agree?

[Recursion]

10. It should be exactly as common as its indication (nt)

[pnwmom]

16. No one here's arguing otherwise about abortion

though many would prefer it if unwanted pregnancies could be avoided in the first place, including, most of all, the women experiencing the unwanted pregnancies. I don't know a single woman who had an abortion who thought it was a trivial procedure.

[Recursion]

18. I would also prefer if cancer were avoided in the first place

But unless one is making the general claim that all medical interventions should be rare because we should all be healthy, I don't see any point in claiming that "abortion should be rare" other than dog-whistling that you dislike abortion.

[pnwmom]

21. But I think most people agree that ideally all significant interventions should be rare

because we should all be healthy. That's the whole aim of preventative medicine.

Saying abortion ideally should be rare is making exactly the same point. Women should have easy access to effective, safe contraception; and those who want to go through a pregnancy should have access to medical care, food, and other support so that no one has to choose abortion simply out of financial need.

None of this changes the fact that it should be the woman and the woman alone who makes the ultimate decision.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

23. yes. you said better than me the point I was trying to make

which is...OBVIOUSLY chemotherapy should be as available as its need. same with insulin, etc. etc. BUT the goal should be reduction of and elimination of those conditions.

I would imagine that if a woman chooses not to continue a pregnancy, she treats it as a negative health consequence that needs to be dealt with through medicine. Well, the same applies. An ounce of prevention is always preferred.

That is the point. Not some dog whistle as others continue to contend.

[nomorenomore08]

38. Well, it's probably not a dog whistle if you or another left-leaning person says it.

That's not the issue, though. The issue is that it often is a dog whistle when spoken by people who, subtly or overtly, are anti-choice. And it plays into a cultural narrative that is both anti-freedom/privacy and anti-woman.

In an ideal world - or as close to ideal as humanly possible - would unwanted pregnancies be rare? Of course. No one in their right mind is going to dispute that. But we don't live in that world, and insisting that abortion be a rarity both stigmatizes women who need one, and even worse, potentially denies them one.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

5. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. etc..etc...

I mean, right off the bat, chemo is fucking awful. And being on the verge of choking to death sucks too.

[Niceguy1]

6. better if you

Selected elective proceedures...

[Recursion]

9. Why? (nt)

[Niceguy1]

31. makes for a better arugment

[Recursion]

32. Only in an imaginary world where abortion is always elective (nt)

[nomorenomore08]

39. Abortion is not "elective" in most cases. For the majority of women who abort

parenthood is not a viable option.

[Pab Sungenis]

52. So we work for a world where it CAN be a viable option.

We work on eliminating poverty.

[Deep13]

11. They ought to be very rare due to the diseases they treat being rare.

But for those that need them, they should be safe, legal, available, and free.

[nomorenomore08]

40. + a bunch

[Warren DeMontague]

12. The word I have a problem with is "should"

I'm just not able to figure out why what someone else does with their body shouldn't be between them and their doctor. How did I even get in the conversation?

[TroglodyteScholar]

14. I won't be doing any of those things...

...any more frequently than absolutely necessary.

So I guess your point is lost on me.

[pnwmom]

15. Absolutely. Who wants to have to go through that?

Much better not to have cancer or diabetes in the first place.

And it's much better not to have an unplanned, unwished for pregnancy in the first place.

[NoOneMan]

19. If any costly, traumatic, risky medical procedure can be avoided with early intervention/prevention,

to make it rare, then from a fiscal standpoint--as well as one to promote the most positive health outcomes with the least evasive intervention--such measures should absolutely be utilized to prevent what we should characterize as a last resort.


Smart people should be concerned with avoiding problems and making them rare by promoting education and healthy living

[enough]

47. +1 thanks (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

20. Self-delete and let it sink? This just didn't work at all, did it? (nt)

[Recursion]

22. It hit that much of a nerve with you, huh? (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

28. Yes. It's such an inspired, powerful thread. You have totally blown away "safe, legal and rare".

I expect this thread to be on the Greatest Page imminently.

[Spirochete]

24. Chemotherapy should be non-existent

Due to the reason for it being also non-existent.

Then I woke up...

[Pretzel_Warrior]

25. but the point still stands.

if we could wave a wand and change human behaviors to a point where unwanted pregnancies were rare--that would naturally make abortions rare which would be a good thing all the way around.

Unfortunately, you've got the God worshipers preaching abstinence and hating on birth control. And funny thing....lots of them Christian younguns wind up pregnant.

[Spirochete]

30. I agree

When someone says abortion should be rare, it means situations where one is needed should be rare. And it makes less than zero sense for them to want to outlaw birth control AND abortions.

[jmowreader]

26. Yes, chemotherapy should be rare

And if we get some of the carcinogens out of the environment it may well become.

[quakerboy]

27. Yes.

If we could find ways to make these things less necessary, then yes, I would love to see them become rare.

[johnd83]

29. Many of those things should be "rare"

Improper use of any medical treatment is bad. Many people including myself support the right to choose but it is still not something that should be done lightly.

[RainDog]

33. Yes. We would all prefer for fewer people to suffer from illnesses

Though I get what you're saying and agree that it's a dodge, at the least, and a moral outrage aimed at women for the most part.

Because the reality is that if we want to make any medical situation based upon choices "rare" - we have to agree to preventive actions.

This means, for abortion, affordable and accessible birth control for females, along with sex education that is devoid of religious prescriptions.

This is what makes the statement offensive about abortion - because the reality is that those who claim to be the moral voice about this issue don't, ultimately, care about abortion as much as they care about forcing their religious prescriptions on American females.

The reality, as we all know, is that abortion will exist whether it's legal or not.

But we can take steps to make abortion less likely by making birth control part of the reality of life for anyone, MALE or female, who is sexually active. It's not just the female who has a vested interest in this from the stand point of personal responsibility.

Beyond that, there are situations where it is medically advisable to have an abortion and women should not have to feel this is in any way related to some other person's religious prescriptions for others' sexual lives either.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

34. the people who say abortion should be "rare" are progressive Dems who want to protect women's choice

but also acknowledge this is a tough issue for all involved. Not to mention it is a medical procedure women would rather not go through if they didn't feel it was necessary.

The ones you are referring to say NO ABORTION. The ones who say "rare" also typically believe in full access to affordable birth control and believe in a strong program of sex education for young people in school.

[nomorenomore08]

41. Then how about we (collectively) put a little more daylight between us and the "NO ABORTION" folks?

[Fumesucker]

44. That wouldn't be a "moderate" position

Keeping the minimum amount of daylight possible between the Democrats and the Republicans is what "moderates" want.

[nxylas]

42. Hell yes

I've been through chemo, and wouldn't wish it on anybody.

[OwnedByCats]

45. Abortion shouldn't be rare from an availability

standpoint, but a preventative one. If I'm not mistaken, there seems to be some confusion on this, that if we say "rare", it means only some woman should have access and others should go without. That's not what we're trying to say at all. All women should have access, I think we're all in agreement on that. It's just if an unplanned pregnancy can be avoided, why not avoid it? It's not an easy thing to go through. It is best avoided but for circumstances where it could not be avoided then women should be able to have it done. When someone like Hilary Clinton says "rare", I always took it to mean that it's better for women to have as much control over their reproductive rights as possible and through education and easy access to birth control, would ultimately make the procedure less common through prevention, but is still available for anyone who needs it because there will always be a need for this no matter how careful one is to avoid it.

If the concern is that by saying rare, people will take it to mean unavailable for some, that's a shame.

[Jim Lane]

46. The "rare" line is tactically astute as it exposes RW hypocrisy

If they were sincerely concerned with reducing the number of abortions, they would support ready access to contraception, sex education that went beyond abstinence-only, etc. In fact, of course, they're sincerely concerned about imposing their personal views of morality and thereby curtailing other people's choices.

There may also be some sincere opponents of abortion who are brought around to voting for pro-choice candidates on pragmatic grounds. Government policies that help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place have a greater effect in reducing the number of abortions than do the various RW attempts to circumvent Roe v. Wade.

I don't think it's a dog whistle if you say "safe, legal, and rare."

And, yes, as others have said, chemotherapy should indeed be rare. I don't know if I got cancer because of environmental pollutants or the like, but to the extent that there are available policy choices that would reduce the number of people who have to have chemo, they should be pursued.

[Recursion]

55. Bingo

At least somebody got it.

[hack89]

48. Yes, cancer and diabetes should be eradicated

just like polio and smallpox.

Abortion should be unrestricted, however preventing unwanted pregnancies through education and contraption is a worthy goal.

[el_bryanto]

49. That's a pretty stupid comparison. You know why people want abortion to be rare.

To pretend it's just a medical treatment is either stupid or willfully setting up an easy to knock down strawman.

Bryant

[Autumn]

50. I wish those things were rare.

All of those treatments are legal. But if they were rare, that would be awesome.

[Pab Sungenis]

51. Yes.

Because eventually, if they become rare, it means that those diseases are effectively being eliminated.

If abortion becomes rare, it will be because we will have worked hard on eliminating the root causes of many abortions: poverty, poor sex education, lack of access to birth control, sexual assault, and so on.

When I say that abortion should be "rare" I say it because I want the NEED for abortions to be rare, not that I want the CHOICE to be rare.

[scheming daemons]

53. Yes... They should all be rare. Are you kidding me?

I would love for the health of the population to be such that all of those procedures were rare.

[JoePhilly]

56. Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, Yes, Yes, Yes, Not familar, No, Yes, Not sure, Yes, Yes, Yes, No ...

Not sure, no, Yes. (I hope I got them all and did not skip any by accident as that would be bad).

I'd like to use various forms of prevention to make treatments associated with illness, or other conditions that lead to pain, suffering, etc., rare.

In many of these situations, the person has some condition which does, or will, cause them pain or other forms of suffering. And the procedure in question is intended to help remove, stop, mitigate the pain, suffering, etc.

As for the procedure you decided to not name ... Yes. I'd like it to be rare too. And yes, I know the GOP uses a talking point using that term. Doesn't matter to me.

What matters to me is from my own personal experience. Some will say men should have nothing to say about abortion. Well, in this man's life, I've had three women come to me, and ask my for my help in making "their choice".

Should I have stayed silent? Told them "sorry, I have a penis and so it would be wrong for me to give you any advice on this topic."

The person who needs chemotherapy would rather NOT have to take it. And they can choose not to. Its a choice they would rather not be making.

From my experience, for many women, they "need" an abortion. They did not WANT one. It is a choice they would rather not be making. But its a choice they should have.

No one gets up in the morning eager to take Chemo. I think the same can be said for many of the treatments on your list. Nose job, Vasectomy seem like potential exceptions (and yes, I have heard of folks who "need" a nose job because of a deviated septum).

So I guess my point is your premise is wrong. You think no one would want many of these treatments (including abortion), to be rare.

I think you are wrong about that.