Log in

View Full Version : Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra



coberst
5th December 2008, 14:12
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra

It is obvious even to the most casual observer (no Critical Thinking required) that we must quickly deal with the problem that medical technology has left on our door step. As a result of the success of medical technology we can prolong life ever more, every day, than the day before. I claim that this constantly extending the prolongation of life must quickly cease; we can no longer afford such a foolish unreflective behavior.

Bruce Hardy, a British citizen and cancer victim, was refused the funds, by British health officials, for a drug that could likely prolong his life for 6 more months. The drug treatment cost was estimated to be $54,000. His distraught wife said Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they can.

British authorities, after a storm of protest, are reconsidering their decision on the cancer drug and others.

The introduction of the drug Viagra, by Pfizer, in 1998, panicked British health officials. They figured it might bankrupt the governments health budget and thus placed restrictions on its use. Pfizer sued and the British government instituted a standard program, with the acronym NICE, for rationing health drugs.

Before NICE, hospitals and clinics often came to different decisions about which drugs to buy, creating geographic disparities in care that led to outrage.

British Balance Benefit vs. Cost of Latest Drugs New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp)

I have stated many times before that I was convinced that we have created a technology that is too powerful for our intellectually unsophisticated citizens to deal with. It seems to me that this particular dilemma does not require a great deal of sophistication to understand. This might be a perfect place to begin a nationwide (USA) Internet discourse directed at getting our intellectual arms around this problem and helping our government officials in an attempt to resolve this terrible dilemma.

Incidentally I am 74 years old, which I think qualifies me to push this matter without appearing to be a hypocrite.

Lynx
5th December 2008, 15:35
The problem appears to be cost and opportunity cost.

coberst
6th December 2008, 12:46
Mine is not so much a question as it is a claim that we face some very serious moral questions that requires answers constructed on a foundation of courage, compassion, and sophistication. How can we stabilize world human population in a moral and sophisticated manner and how do we utilize our resources to best effect that important result?

Dean
7th December 2008, 18:07
It is true that the excessive, hedonist lifestyle prevalent in the West is unsustainable. But this is not a hedonist lifestyle the the traditional notion - quite more insidious, it is a hedonistic taking-in of the toys, novelty goods ranging from food to automobiles and medicene that our current economic system uses for capital gain. No longer is hedonism in the control of the hedonists, in other words.

In the same way, medical science is in no way the cause of the problems arising from this excess. The problem is one of prioritization. Yes, Viagra is less relevant than drugs to fight AIDs. However, even if we prioritize this way, Viagra is not a problem. What is a problem is the excessive, rapid and wasteful consumption-as-waste of electronics, novelty foods, status symbols etc..

Some of the vulgar consumerists here would be shocked at the notion that humans are "consuming too much." They don't understand how someone would want anything less for the consumer. But that is not the point - what we want is more quality/b] for consumers. We should not be vessels into which the capitalist enterprise pumps its crap.

[b]We need humanist, rational and steady consumption based on a prioritization of the health and wellbeing of all humans. The economic system has no place developing new marketing strategies, new credit lines, new contracts, new legal standards, new perfumes, new toy-gimmicks, new fashion fads, new addictive foods and looks. Drugs which help the sexually disabled are far less important than the basic medicenes for life preservation, food distribution and development &c., but as a spiritually-enabling drug to resolve a physical disability, viagra is far more important than, say, the mass post-manufacture branding of a symbol on shoes.