Is there a right to die?
Could the next president wave the individual mandate altogether?
A blow to cook book medicine: Scientists aim to tailor prostate cancer therapy to a patient’s cell activity.
A second blow: Using DNA to custom-fit drug treatments.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more great content just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
“Is there a right to die?”
No. We have a right to life, which excludes the idea of having a right to death. You can choose to stop receiving treatment and accept what may or may not come, but you have no right to choose deliberate death.
The idea that anyone in the situations described is capable of making that choice “competently” and rationally is a legal farce.
“Could the next president wave the individual mandate altogether?”
Why not? Obama has already decided that laws only exist as long as he wants them to, so what’s to stop the next guy?
Seriously. What’s the point of having a legislative branch if we have a president that feels free to do whatever he wishes via executive order?
So much for checks and balances. This pick and choose method is completely ridiculous.
Let’s cut the pretense and just re-establish the monarchy.
“A blow to cook book medicine: Scientists aim to tailor prostate cancer therapy to a patient’s cell activity.”
How long until that is regulated?
Or mandated. What they don’t kill they enforce.
“A second blow: Using DNA to custom-fit drug treatments.”
That’s probably how most medicine will go as the genome comes to be understood more and more.
It is one thing to not want terminally ill patients to suffer if death is the most likely of outcomes. However, putting these decisions in the hands of doctors and the patients is a slippery slope. There will always be a “what-if” scenario if death is not a certainty.
Doctors will face a ton more liability with this kind of responsibility. Especially with families who do not necessarily agree with letting their terminally ill family member make the decision to die, especially when that patient is most likely not in the most rational frame of mind.
“It ‘doesn’t tell you if a specific chemotherapy’ will work against the tumor, but ‘it sorts out a lot of confusion by telling you whether you have the kind of disease that’s going to kill you or not kill you.'”
And so if the patient has the kind of disease that will kill them, we send them to New Mexico?
And if they have the advance kind that kills them, are they less likely to be treated because of the poor outlook already?
It opens the door to a whole range of undesirable situations.
Having that kind of ultimatum is bad for the patients seeking care if they are on the riskier end of the distribution.
“Certainly I think in the future we’ll see that people get genotyped and they’ll have this whole list of drugs that they should avoid.”
This method will be exponentially more effective than the current trial and error method of prescribing medications.
Hopefully, this way they will be able to discover drug allergies in patients without giving them the drugs and experiencing the adverse reactions first.
I see that as the first benefit of many in this line of medicine.
Especially with mood stabilizers and anti-depressants. Most times the prescription of these meds are based on how the patient feels, without any imbalances able to be identified.
Get Health Alerts by Email: