Saturday, November 7, 2009

Is it morally right to deny treatment to patients who do not have a way to pay?

Not sure what topic area to post this one too, but I guess medicine would be acceptable.
Answers:
Nobody should have to suffer because they are poor. A doctor cannot refuse treatment because it would go against his Hippocratic oath. I have heard of doctors refusing to treat patients whose lifestyle is semi destructive ie; overweight, smoking.etc. I think even that should not be allowed. I understand the doctors are trying to help their patients, but there is a limit to how far they should be allowed to go. So, no. Everyone should get treated regardless of their means
that is a tough one, i think it is morally wrong, but business wise, it is the right thing to do
Nein.
Is it morally right to rip off the doctors and nurses and the hospital and not pay them for their services?
no its not right. If u r sick, u should be able to go see a dr. even if u do not have the funds. I personally think it is bulls*it. Dentists r the same way. U can be dying of pain %26 they still won't see u if u don't have the money up front, which is usually not cheap. It's a bunch of Bull.
I don't think it's morally right, but you should also clarify as to what type of procedure you're talking about.
If it's something superficial/cosmetic, it might still not be morally right, but there's no real harm in denying them treatment. If it's something life-saving, then there really doesn't seem to be something to debate- you really MUST help them. (In my opinion).
obviously its not morally right but if your talking cash its definately right
if a patient truly has no way to pay ( and is not trying to ripp doctors off) then it is morally correct thing to do to help them and treat them especially if this is a major sickness ( or even moderate sickness that could turn into something serious).but this is just my opinionps. whoever said people like this ( who have no way to pay for surgery but desperately need it ) shouldnt get treatment because it is "ripping off doctors." doctors become doctors to help people and just want to help people and wouldnt care if the patient has no way of paying( unless they are only in for the money in which case i spit on ppl like them)
It is morally wrong to deny treatment for patients who cannot pay for their treatment. for instance, take the case of a patient who suffers from TB. If such a patient was denied for treatment they would transmit the disease quite rapidly and this is a disadvantage both to the public and the health sector..
I think that if there are medical services which can help a person, than that person has the RIGHT to be helped by them.
Personally, I wish the USA was on a system like Canada, which, at the cost of significant taxes, provides health care to all of its people.
Medicine isn't just another commodity, and should not be treated as such. Medical practitioners, medicine, and research all cost money to provide, but they are not the same as TVs, and store owners. I believe that people have the right to recieve the best health care possible, because people can die with poor or no health care. We don't have the right as a society to kill people for their monetary status. Therefore society should step up, in the form of taxes, to make sure that all people can recieve the health care they deseve.
It definately is morally wrong. Doctors take an oath to save lives and by denying someone medical help they are breaking that oath. Now I also think that it would be wrong not to pay the doctors, which is why I think that the government should pay for medical treatment. Someone can't help getting sick or getting hurt and they shouldn't have to die because they can't pay out a lot of money for the treatment they get. We can blow up other countries but we can't even provide good health care to all individuals.how morally wrong is that?
Is it morally right to own a cellular phone, DVD player, have cable TV and eat out at restaurants when you haven't secured health insurance for yourself?
there r some condition u cant deny1) potential dangerous or critically ill
2) delivery
3) death certificateetc
for starters, it is legally impossible not to give primary attention to stabilise patients.moving on, this obviously drops the responsability on medics alone. sure there is a commitment to serve people regardless, but you won't live off good will.The rest of society dumps these moral deals on medics and so they can point fingers? my * they can. The problem here is not the medics but the central government and indirectly the whole of society. there's places where healthcare is taken care of by the state. or at least in a balanced fashion (the rich pay for the poor). in such fashion doctors don't depend on independent patients paying up but rather recieving accordingly to the service you provide via the govt or semi-private healthcare providers. of course, in your retrogressive and demolishing capitalist democracy (america), there's no subsidiary systems and medics are only another business (for starters, many of you call your services "offices". i'd not be surprised you serve clients rather than patients); the rich pay for themselves and only very little diverts for the poor to get their healthcare.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

 
vc .net