Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[Taem]

I feel like I should ignore them, because I don't really understand what point you are trying to make.

I'm sorry I didn’t structure my points well. Really, I suppose its due to posting at work and not having the time to read over what I wrote to word it better. I guess I'll spell it out more dirrectly. In my first post, you stated, "<span style="color:#999900">The duty of medicine is not to "improve the quality of life", it is to heal." I was trying to bring up two points:

1) Sex is not necessary for our survival, and not being able to have it, while possibly psychologically damaging for some, does not mean you need healing; there are drugs for psychological problems. My point is that there are some drugs people take simply to "feel better" and not so much to heal. I brought up this fact to dispute your claim cited above.

2) I have a relative who is a general practitioner, and I know from having conversations with this person that if someone has a chronic problem, they can simply prescribe a medication to be refilled after "x" amount of doses instead of calling them into the office for visits. I brought up my dog and his vet as an example of two things: a) While most if not all doctors enter the medical field to heal their patients, some will abuse the system (i.e. making extra visitations mandatory when they are unnecessary) to generate extra income, b ) It's not limited to human doctors, but all medical doctors across the field.

You brought up the argument, "<span style="color:#999900">It would be easy to show that for many doctors it is not about the money.", but I will contend that it's just as easy to prove the latter. Just because a doctor says they love what they do does not make them greedy.

In my second post, I quoted a snippet of you explaining how to Lisa's how her definition of medicine, "<span style="color:#3333FF">The purpose is to affect a better quality of life for the patient, be it healing, treating, prolonging, and yes, ending in as dignified manner as possible." was far too broad, "<span style="color:#999900">You want to attach the field of medicine to "improving the quality of life" for some reason. I think a well running automobile, a fat bank account and a clean house improves my quality of life. It is a vague notion that can apply to almost anything.", by insinuating if medicine were used to actually "improve someone’s life," then it could be used for many other things, perhaps not as righteous?

So, I countered with these points:

1) Dying soldiers given Morphine to easy their suffering before they die. Thought it was fitting and melded nicely with Lisa's post. I was trying to argue against your point of view that medicine is "only for healing," by pointing out it's uses for bettering ones quality of life, if but for a few moments. The person is going to die; there is no need to "treat" them except for the sake of being humane. Do you consider being humane part of healing, because to me, those are different subjects?
2) Medical Marijuana issued to patients in the state of California; I'll tell you right now, there are plenty of quack doctors out there that prescribe medicines to people I know to be nice, even though they don't need it. Medical Marijuana is just another example of a drug used to better someone’s life, but it has no healing properties; it is no healing ointment or bandage. It is a pain reliever for some, a time to get high for others. Do you consider marijuana to be a legitimate "healing" drug? Where to pain relievers fit into your scheme?
3) How medicines role in our lives has metamorphed from life saving, to "improving the quality of your life" through advertisements. Go to any doctors office and look in any magazine and you will see ads for every type of drug imaginable saying, "ask your doctors about...." And your telling me, yet again, that these ads have no effect whatsoever on the human psyche? Have you ever taken an interpersonal communication or psychology class? Are you aware of the effect groups and peer pressure can have on an individual? And you still think I'm full of horse manure? Someone needs to rethink what I said, because I think Lisa hit the nail on the head when she said, "<span style="color:#3333FF">but you refuse to listen and choose to think that only your narrow minded definition is the be all and end all of medicine is the problem."
4) A few personal examples how some doctors manipulate people to get their money and,
5) How people believe everything a doctor tells them. There are many studies and news reports on how doctors are wrong quite often, and I remember a study done by a university that said doctors misdiagnosed roughly 65% of the time. As Jester is so fond of pointing out, those statistics could have been done from biased poles to generate an end result said study group wanted, and I can't find a web link, however I think it's accurate. My point? That most people could get better on their own without any medicine at all, and it is mainly the doctors pushing it on the people, or better yet, the insurance companies trying to make a buck pushing them to push products to "better ones quality of life." Did I really have to explain all that too you, or were you playing coy to get me riled up?

What does "improve the quality of life" mean to you? For example, does "Art" improve the quality of your life? Does clean air and water improve the quality of your life? Do safe neighborhoods improve the quality of your life? Words have meanings, yes. I define medicine as the science, which relates to the prevention, cure, or alleviation of disease. Physician and doctor in my dictionary still mean "one skilled in the healing arts". I didn't define "what medicine is...", I gave two vastly different definitions by doctors in contrast to Angel's definition.

I suppose there is many different interpretations to what that could mean. To someone in a third world country, that might be as simple as a towel or bowl of soup; to someone in the US, it might be a golden toilet bowl. In regards to medicine, I meant exactly what I said before, that the media is what basically controls what people think and if the media tells people medicinie will better your life, and insurers and doctors agree [$$$], then that's what it is - majority rules, right?

I have no high horses. I train them.

Cute.