Reviewing my last two blogs, some people may question the issue of the abundance of those in need and my use of positivity when it comes to health. Using the same example as before, if a doctor has ten patients and only needs two things, should the doctor turn down the other eight or the ones who don’t have what he or she needs? Of course not.
It’s the doctor’s duty to ensure the health of each patient. For the ones who do not have what the doctor needs, they can offer communication, as I explained in a previous blog. There are other options available. The remaining patients can either offer a type of need that the doctor can save until later when he or she needs it or they can go to another doctor who does need what the patients are offering. Just because one person is a doctor, does not mean another can’t be. However, they both must treat each patient equally. By each patient, I mean any patient that needs a doctor, and not a specific doctor. To further explain, if Tom and Jerry are both doctors and they have ten patients totaled together, both Tom and Jerry should ensure the health of each patient, regardless of whether the patient chooses Tom or Jerry. In the case of an absence of patients, the doctor can utilize another type of need to obtain other types of needs. With this being said, I hardly doubt that within a community, there will be only doctors. Everyone has a unique gift and it is doubtful that all will be the same.
So far, I have said that doctors are essential to put patients in good health. What if the doctor is unable to fix or cure an illness? Should the patient still return a type of need? I have stated over and over that doctors have the duty of ensuring the health of their patients. If there is nothing that can be done for the patient and the doctor has done everything he or she can, including researching, then yes, the patient should return a type of need. If the doctor refuses to research further after realizing nothing can be done, the patient should not be expected to return a type of need. It is the doctor’s duty to not only ensure this patient’s health, but to educate him or herself on the illness for future patients. This within itself will fulfill a type of need, communication. This method does not only pertain to doctors, but to anyone. If anyone fails at a job, the person must educate him or herself to better themselves for the future; thus fulfilling a need.
RJ
Showing posts with label doctors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doctors. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Healthcare Does Not Bring Peace
Many people have asked me about my thoughts on healthcare. It is obvious that one needs to be in good health in order to survive. Insurance companies are the ones that decide whether an individual receives healthcare and the amount. Those individuals who can afford more insurance obtain more insurance than those who cannot. Is this fair?
If two patients with identical health issues but with different amounts of healthcare insurance went to a doctor, should the doctor favor the patient with more insurance over the other? Of course not. Doctors solely exist to better their patients’ health. Doctors are essential for life because in order to survive, one needs to be in good health. Both patients need to be in good health and therefore, the doctor must do his or her duty by tending to both of them.
Everyone has a gift, a duty, in life. Doctors have the duty of putting patients in good health. By giving good health, the doctor is giving the patient a better chance of survival. There is no price on survival. The doctor should not expect monetary payment in return. This is what many people oversee. Doctors should expect a better chance of survival in return. In my previous blog, I stated that one needs three things in order to survive: replenishment, thermoregulation, and communication. Whichever the doctor is lacking, he or she should expect in return.
Two issues may arise with this method. One being what if the doctor is not lacking in any of the three types of needs. I find this quite unlikely since communication is always a need. People may not want it, but it is a need. For example, if the doctor healed a fisherman, the fisherman could easily return the favor by teaching the doctor how to fish. This will not only include communication, but also replenishment. Thus, making the doctor more knowledgeable and well-rounded, able to teach others how to fish. The other issue is what if the patient has nothing to give in return or does not have what the doctor needs. I find this hard to believe as I believe everyone can teach something to better another. If not, the patient could locate someone who could do something for the doctor if the patient did something for that someone. Despite these issues, they come with an advantage. In either issue, the patient has started a network, a community. This community is not just any community, but a community of interdependence; where everyone collaborates peacefully using their unique gift with the objective to maintain equal amount of survival for everyone.
And ultimately, isn’t that fair?
RJ
If two patients with identical health issues but with different amounts of healthcare insurance went to a doctor, should the doctor favor the patient with more insurance over the other? Of course not. Doctors solely exist to better their patients’ health. Doctors are essential for life because in order to survive, one needs to be in good health. Both patients need to be in good health and therefore, the doctor must do his or her duty by tending to both of them.
Everyone has a gift, a duty, in life. Doctors have the duty of putting patients in good health. By giving good health, the doctor is giving the patient a better chance of survival. There is no price on survival. The doctor should not expect monetary payment in return. This is what many people oversee. Doctors should expect a better chance of survival in return. In my previous blog, I stated that one needs three things in order to survive: replenishment, thermoregulation, and communication. Whichever the doctor is lacking, he or she should expect in return.
Two issues may arise with this method. One being what if the doctor is not lacking in any of the three types of needs. I find this quite unlikely since communication is always a need. People may not want it, but it is a need. For example, if the doctor healed a fisherman, the fisherman could easily return the favor by teaching the doctor how to fish. This will not only include communication, but also replenishment. Thus, making the doctor more knowledgeable and well-rounded, able to teach others how to fish. The other issue is what if the patient has nothing to give in return or does not have what the doctor needs. I find this hard to believe as I believe everyone can teach something to better another. If not, the patient could locate someone who could do something for the doctor if the patient did something for that someone. Despite these issues, they come with an advantage. In either issue, the patient has started a network, a community. This community is not just any community, but a community of interdependence; where everyone collaborates peacefully using their unique gift with the objective to maintain equal amount of survival for everyone.
And ultimately, isn’t that fair?
RJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
