|
Edited on Sun Nov-02-08 07:26 PM by Boojatta
1. Cigarette smoking is becoming less common
People who quit smoking or never started are likely to enjoy a lifestyle free of chemotherapy treatment, provided that they live far from hospitals. However, people who live close to hospitals cannot claim that it would be inconvenient to travel a short distance for periodic chemotherapy treatments. Are they ready to pay the wages of health care workers who are no longer receiving an adequate supply of cancer patients? I don't think so. It would be quite easy to reintroduce polio germs into the environment. Could they manage without the help of vaccines developed by government researchers? It's unlikely. If they want to enjoy the health benefits provided by governments, then they should be realistic and accept that life includes not just the pleasant, but also the unpleasant. As a matter of fact, everybody agrees that chemotherapy treatment is unpleasant, so there's nothing controversial about this. Compulsory chemotherapy treatments will definitely help some people. People who believe that they are not being helped should recognize that they are fallible human beings and that they might be wrong. Compulsory chemotherapy treatment might actually be helping them too, regardless of what they think.
2. Nobody is talking about taking away freedom
If you are a qualified health care professional, then you will continue to be free to offer testing services for people who want a second opinion about whether or not they are suffering from cancer. However, it must be remembered that a second opinion is still just an opinion. Therefore, none of these second opinions can be given official recognition. People who live close to a hospital will be presumed to have cancer, regardless of any medical testing conducted. There is no significant risk of a government being mistaken about whether or not somebody lives near a hospital. However, medical examination of an individual patient always carries with it a risk of error, so medical examination results shouldn't be accepted as an excuse for an individual who lives near a hospital to evade his or her duty to undergo chemotherapy treatments.
3. This is a new application of ideas that have already stood the test of time
Teachers need jobs and if they're to keep their jobs, then they need an adequate stream of students. Health care workers need jobs and if they are to keep their jobs, then they need an adequate stream of patients. Students who live near a school are not eligible for correspondence courses. They are required to attend classes, just as people who live near a hospital should be required to attend chemotherapy treatment sessions. Refusing to permit students to attempt official tests for high school equivalency proves that they require education, just as refusing to permit official medical testing of people who live near hospitals would prove that they need chemotherapy treatment.
People who have high school equivalency credentials are prepared for remedial education, just as people who don't live near a hospital might have specific symptoms and might be prepare to seek customized diagnosis and treatment. People who don't have high school equivalency credentials aren't prepared for remedial education, but should be required to attend classes, just as people who live near a hospital aren't prepared for customized diagnosis and treatment, but should be required to undergo general chemotherapy treatment.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
