2007-02-09 10:35:34 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I think so. There is such waste in the health industry, like knowing someone is terminal, but operating on them anyway. Somewhere along the line, we need to stop providing extreme care to people who are dieing.
2007-02-09 10:41:58 · answer #1 · answered by kathy059 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Not at all, although accepting death is important as well. You have to remember that not all people who die are old and have lived there life. A lot of young people die of cancer, aids and other various diseases or they get in accidents and they need health care to get well. Lets say you step on a rusty nail, all you would need to do is get a tetanus shot and all is well, whereas if you couldn't afford that one simple little shot you could get gangrene and either have to amputate a limb or simply "accept your death" and just die. Health care is extremely important and comes first, people should accept death when they know there was nothing they could do.
2007-02-09 18:47:41 · answer #2 · answered by Agnostic 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but only if one could die as soon as something went wrong and one does not have to suffer. The problem in accepting death before health care is we don't know how much and for how long our normal life would be affected by sickness and deceases before we die. Quality of life is just as important as accepting death.
2007-02-09 19:10:31 · answer #3 · answered by longliveabcdefg 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Attempting to prolong life is part of the process. People want to live as long as they can, they also want everyone they love to live long too... The point is that because of technology and things at play in our world we can enhance an older lifestyle. Accepting death is a part of life... I heard something from t.v. that said people die to make living that much sweeter... its our nature to do everything possible until the body no longer has the resoures or the energy to continue.
If it was about accepting death then we wouldn't even have need for the flu shot... we should just accept that our kids can die from a common disease... the revolutions in health care will bring about a new way to live and be healthy... they will also bring about a new way to recouperate/heal...
You go on preparing to die... I'm gonna keep living, living well, and looking forward to ways that will keep me alive for a long long time!
2007-02-09 18:43:58 · answer #4 · answered by teche16 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, accepting CERTAIN death should be more important than health care, but accepting UNNECESSARY death due to a lack of quality health care should not.
2007-02-09 19:04:04 · answer #5 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While i think that health care is important, I also feel that more people should learn to die with dignity. I'd rather die of a sudden heart attack at 50, than live to be a hundred but in pain the whole time. What's the point in living on oxygen bottles and medications, if every day you're complaining about how bad you feel? Stop while you're ahead. Of coure this has to be a personal choice. I am not in anyway condoning suicide or euthenasia.
2007-02-09 18:49:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Health care is more important than death when people can no longer do about it.
2007-02-10 04:10:57 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you asking that we let our children die rather than accepting health care?
Are you asking that a person who falls down the steps & breaks a bone, should just let it go until gangrene sets in rather than accepting health care?
How far are you willing to go before you accept health care?
You don't say what type of Health Care you are talking about. Are you asking about subsidized health care? Why not be a bit more explicit.
2007-02-09 18:51:54 · answer #8 · answered by geegee 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Two things in life, as I am sure you know is death and taxes. But to allow death when it is unnecessary and wrong. We with our technology and advanced care can many times save people to continue in productive and useful lives. So in answer to your question no death should not be more important then life.
2007-02-09 19:34:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It shoudn't be. But, that is the choice many people have to make thse days. I have a friend who works for a hospital and was recently diagnosed with inoperable cancer. With her insurance, after 3 months of tests, her portion of the bill is $27,000! I wonder how many have that under their mattress. Good little citizen that she is, she's thinking she can borrow from her death benefits! I think it's time we admit that there's at least three healthcare systems in the US. One for the upper class(the best in the world), lousy insurance and care for middle class, and one for the poor-and the last two substandard to any other large countries.
2007-02-09 18:49:17 · answer #10 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, but it should be weighed thoughtfully against the quality of life you will have with and without treatment. If I was told tomorrow I have stage 4 cancer, my treatment is going to be a Platinum Visa card and a one way ticket to Tahiti. If I was told that I had cancer that had an 85% chance of being cured with radiation and chemotherapy, I'd stay in there and fight. I think accepting both within reasonable limits are equally important. No one lives forever, but why go earlier than you have to.
2007-02-09 18:44:02 · answer #11 · answered by Zen 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋