 |
| "Gone with the Wind" (1939) |
228. Tversky and Redelmeier found that "in treating individual patients, doctors often did things they would disapprove of if they were creating a public policy to treat groups of patients" (229). In these situations, there was a conflict "between the interests of the patients and the general interests of society" (229).
In situations like these, what do you think is more important: the doctor's freedom to make a decision that benefits the individual patient? Or the larger society's interest in protecting the health of the greatest number of its citizens?
People tend to look for simple answers to complex problems because a simple answer often makes the most sense. In these situations, however, patients aren’t statistics. Each person has their own medical needs and different factors of a patient’s health can mean different types of treatment. If a government policy is put in place that affects the treatment of patients, it should be done in situations with little or no exceptions. Although doctors are humans just like the rest of us, I would much rather have my doctor do what’s best for me than to have Congress or society decide what’s best.
ReplyDeleteYou made an excellent point bringing up how treatments can affect individuals in different manners. Especially when each patient has a different medical history, genetic makeup, and allergies (if they have any at all). It must also be said that religious beliefs could also influence how a patient is or is not treated. Unless a Congress member has experience or close ties to the medical field, they might not think about how these things could drastically affect patients.
DeleteWhen able, medical decisions should be a case-by-case basis. I understand the need for protecting the populace but pushing sanctions upon a large number of individuals is always going to be met with blowback. -Darian Shaw
ReplyDelete