Life Question #4:

If a new medicine were developed that would cure arthritis but cause a fatal reaction in 0.1% of those who took it, would you want it to be released to the public?

Heck no!  As tempting as it would be to rid the world of arthritis, I don’t think it’s ethical to knowingly release medication that would certainly kill a set amount of people.  In some ways it’s a shame because arthritis affects one in five American adults. My own mom struggles with arthritis (she’s only 55, so it’s probably going to get worse), and I’ve seen pain and discomfort she deals with.  As a young person who has no serious health problems, it’s hard to imagine having pain in my hands and wrists.  I do have what’s known as Raynaud ’s phenomenon, a condition in which my hands are super cold due to a lack of blood flow.  So in some ways I can understand the discomfort that could be associated with early onset arthritis.  Regardless, I can’t imagine having 50,000 people die because of this medication. 

Life Question #2:

If you ran a hospital, what policy would you set for dealing with emergency patients who arrive without health insurance?

*Note:  This is one of the posts I will be making entitled "Life Questions".  Generally, these posts will be shorter than my regular posts.  These questions come from a book I have entitled The Book of Questions.  See it here.  The sole purpose of this book and my blog is to stimulate conversation.  Please feel free to write your comments in the section below, however short or long you'd like!  

------- 

I would treat the patients because it is both my ethical and legal duty to do so.  A federal law passed in 1986 to prohibit a practice commonly known as "patient dumping" gives you the right to emergency care regardless of your ability to pay. The federal law applies to hospitals that participate in Medicare -- and that includes most hospitals in the United States. The federal patient-dumping law entitles you to do three things: screening, emergency care and appropriate transfers. A hospital must provide "stabilizing care" for a patient with an emergency medical condition. 

Although they dropped the idea of a single-payer system, the Obama Administration’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act goes far in helping those who are uninsured.  Now, the real issue with our health care system is its unbelievable cost.  Hopefully, future legislation can help to incentivize healthy life styles (the First Lady has tried to help move this along) and reduce health care costs. 

Life Question #1:

If you were determining who could immigrate here, would you let in those you thought would contribute the most to our country or those most in need of refuge?

*Note:  This is the first of many posts I will be making entitled "Life Questions".  Generally, these posts will be shorter than my regular posts.  These questions come from a book I have entitled The Book of Questions.  See it here.  The sole purpose of this book and my blog is to stimulate conversation.  Please feel free to write your comments in the section below, however short or long you'd like!  

-------

 

The best solution would be to have some of both – immigrants who could bolster our economy and those in serious need of refuge.  Because our immigration laws are so convoluted and dysfunctional, our system that doesn’t allow many people from either category in.  Ideally, I’d like to see all immigrants who study at an U.S. college or university and who have earned a graduate degree the opportunity to remain in America.  Too often we educate immigrants in our finest institutions, simply to turn them away after graduation.  They return to their home country (often in Asia) to start a new business, innovate or invent.  It’s wonderful that the U.S. still has the finest institutions of higher education in the world, but I’m afraid that won’t last long if we continue to send the best and brightest immigrants back home. If this trend continues, precocious Chinese students will decide to stay in China rather than coming to the U.S.  This would be terrible for the United States. 

With regard to the issue of refuge, I believe that the United States has a responsibility to provide refuge for those in need.  It’s easy to say that the U.S. should accept all refugees, but this isn’t realistic.  It’s probably impossible to make any comprehensive and objective requirements for the conditions that the refugees must be escaping from in order to enter our country.  Therefore, it must be treated on a subjective basis.  This is quite frustrating because it will make enforcement difficult.  Regardless, the bottom line is that some refugees will not be allowed into our country legally.  

Simply put, the issue of immigration shouldn’t be ignored.  Not only has it literally built our nation, but it continues to be one of the most important drivers of the economy.  Without it, we would have very modest population growth – like most European countries.  I think the Obama Administration would have tried to tackle the immigration issue after health care if it hadn’t inherited such a terrible economy and been impeded by Congress.  In the end, there is no easy solution.  If one existed, we’d have already found it.