Is it wiser to medicate the symptom or cure the disease?

Question

Important factors?

* More profits can be made from medicating the symptoms.
* If the symptoms are made into a political issue, then would finding a cure be counterproductive to being re-elected?
* What if finding a cure would take much more time than just medicating a symptom - why bother, right?
* What if you felt good about yourself that you hate people with the symptoms that you don't have?

What if the symptom is abortion? What is the disease? What is the cure?

Answer 1

Depends if you are the biotech godzilla or the person with the disease. If you have a disease and actully want to live then curing it would be the only viable solution. However if you are the drug maker you are going to want to run people dry to fill your pocket.. that is what is happening only in this country as medical is government fed in virtually every other country around.

Answer 2

Generally, it's better to find out what is causing the symptoms. Then determine if that is a bad thing. Then if it is, fix it. Treating the symptoms does not solve anything, except make you less aware of the problem for the moment. Yes, symptom relief is beneficial, if it is intended to be a temporary fix. But symptom relief doesn't solve the problems. So the problems keep coming back.

It's interesting you chose that analogy, because looked at in depth, it really cuts against the conservative arguments prohibiting abortion.

The thing about the abortion debate is that the two sides are arguing entirely unrelated issues. Pro-life people say "abortion is bad". Pro-choice advocates say "The government should be making personal decisions that like".

What is the disease? There are two. First, there is the lack of personal responsibility that people take in their lives. What is the cure? Make people become aware of their choices, and make them have to take affirmative steps to fix problems. What conservatives generally don't want to hear is that sometimes an abortion is the best affirmative step someone can take based on what happened.

For rape or forced incest or unintended accident, there was no choice to get pregnant. So, requiring a woman to carry a baby to term is not making her responsible for her choices; it's punishing her for what happened to her. The symptom isn't abortion. The symptom is rape. And that's also the disease. What's the cure for that? Allowing the woman to have a choice, where she hasn't had one before.

The other problem is the idea that the government should be able to legislate morality and eliminate personal choice. That's not making people take responsibility for their actions. That's just might-makes-right majority-rule bullying.

Do you really want to live in a country where the government can decide if you have a child or not. Or of you can be pregnant or not. Do you really want to abdicate that much of your personal freedom and choice to a group of politicians?

Right now, the conservatives happen to be in the majority, so many of them seem to have no objection to imposing their religious and moral views on others. But watch what happens. The freedom of reproductive choice is the only thing stopping the US from legally being able to REQUIRE abortions, like China does. Or require sterilization. Or require someone to get pregnant. Do we really want to be like Saudi Arabia, where woman have no personal rights in their body? Do we really want the government to be able to make those kind of decisions, based on who happens to in the majority at the moment?

The disease is people wanting to abdicate responsibility. But abdicating it to the government so that nobody gets to choose is not the cure. It's just replacing one situation with an even worse problem.

Answer 3

The ultimate goal would be to cure the disease, but as You stated Politicians are into the quick fix. Put a band aid on it, long enough to get into Office, and then forget what You promised. I am not saying that all Politicians are that way, but it seems to be more of the norm these days, than the exception.

Like wanting to remove guns from the public. It has already happened in other Countries. Do You think that means the Politicians are going to un arm their bodyguards, no. The law would not apply to them. Don't get Me wrong I don't ever
want to have to hurt Someone, but I would certainly like to have the opportunity, if the occasion ever presented itself. If Someone in fact was attempting to harm My Family, or Myself.

I do believe that Some Politicians truly intend to change the state of Our City, State, Or Country, but then they are voted into office, and next thing they know, they are in Vehicle Motorcades, with bullet proof glass, having the red lights changed so that they never have to wait, or be exposed to danger. And the only information they receive, is from outside sources, that tell them that everything is fine. And their well meaning intentions are quashed, eventually subside, and We are back to square one.

Thanks for asking, it felt good to get that off My mind............

God Bless

Answer 4

The disease is lenient society. The cure is to re-introduce the concept of shame and responsibility.

Not that THAT will ever happen again... God forbid we actually feel ashamed of our actions.

Answer 5

Prevention is better then cure.

Whether in health, industry, politics, business,education,relations etc,create a positive disiplined atmosphere where the ugly head of disease cannot rise.

Answer 6

it better to cure it