Nothing much so musings instead . . .

So today is the joy of orgo and physics (luckily no physics lab!! Hurrah!!!!!). And I am meeting with some classmates to discuss our orgo lab. But I thought I would fill you all in on the remnant of an internal debate after a guest speaker in biology class yesterday who talked about the need for universal healthcare. She made several very valid points, but one problem I had with her was a comment she made about acute care. I wrote this yesterday trying to untangle my thoughts. Needless to say, they are still seriously tangled.

I believe in universal healthcare. I want everyone to be covered. But a choice between my family's acute care needs and some other person preventative care, it is only natural that I will choose my family. I think that is a natural inclination of man, to take care of those we love above the common good. And yet, to me the common good is a comprised of single people. And if we take care of everyone but no one well, are we really doing what's best. Prevention should be a bigger focus, of this there can be no doubt. Care for the poor, and underrepresented. But should we sacrifice acute care for that purpose. Admittedly it is horrendously expensive. And has lower positive outcome. Does that make it less worthy and needed? There is something in me that cannot abandon forward medical progress.

There was story recently of a little boy in DC who died of an abcess tooth because doctors refused to care for him because the need was so small, the problem so little. And yet he died. There is grave inequity in medicine. I am horrified by the statistics of 1% infant mortality rate in affluent urban areas, and 20% just 15 miles away. This is not just wrong, it is an affront to everything right and good. Whoever would say that we are now completely equal, I dare them to see that statistic and explain away why these numbers are completely in poor areas, why these are most, if not all, racial minorities. And yes, before you ask, they cannot be explained all by "lifestyle differences."

So where do I stand? I have no idea. I cannot think of the baby at the hospital who lives because of recent medical advancement, who is most likely to never make it past age 2. Can I deny that there is something worthy to fight there? That the struggle for his life is of less importance than the possible emphasis of other unknown childrens' wellness visits? How can you prioritize life and death? I believe that is why we treat medicine in the US as a sickness state, instead of a wellness state. We triage and treat the worst problems first. And since the need is so massive, we never get beyond the worst need. Preventative rarely comes into it. How can we ever find the time or money for it?